Do you think Edward IV was a bigamist? Let me know below and remember to check out: BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/ Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
No, his brother/s probably spread the rumor to justify taking his throne and delegitimizing his children. The Yorks spread a lot of propaganda about their enemies, and then themselves when they turned on each other.
I've been fascinated by Elizabeth Woodville's story since watching The White Queen (you're probably cringing). I've loved learning medieval times up to the Tudors, but with all the moving parts and people, it was easier to understand with characters playing roles rather than reading names and trying to keep track. Now that I have a better grasp of who was who, I'm relearning the correct history, not the fictional one I started with. So, thank you for this video!
No cringing at all. I watched it too and as long as people do what you do (check their facts), I don't have any issue with shows like that. It was actually more accurate than many other supposedly historical shows and movies (looking at you Reign).
Something else worth considering is that Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was only 12 when Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville. He therefore would have been even younger at the time of the alleged Butler marriage. How likely is it, therefore, that he even knew about it? Also, prior to 1483, did Richard even know Robert Stillington? I've never read that this was a man who worked for Richard or owed him any kind of favors, and after Richard was king, it doesn't appear that Stillington benefited in any way (unless Richard just slipped him some money, not wanting to be obvious about it?). If Richard invented the story of his brother's bigamy, why choose Stillington, of all people, to provide the evidence? Did he just pick some random churchman and tell him, "I'm making a bid for the throne; can you please provide me with a plausible cover story?" And Stillington said, "Sure," without even getting some kind of reward in return? All this makes me wish Eric Ives had lived long enough to write a biography of Richard III. His books on Anne Boleyn and Lady Jane Grey were SO well-researched, and he was relentless in his interrogation of the primary sources. Thanks, HC, as always for another fascinating and thought-provoking video!
THANK YOU HAPPYCOMMUTER for your generous donation to the channel. Yes, you're correct that Richard would have been pretty young at the time of both marriages (or supposed marriage) and likely left relying on the word of others regarding what had or hadn't happened. I don't know all the ins and outs of Richard's relationship with Stillington, but Stillington was a prominent churchman, so they may well have had dealings. Like yourself, I wish Eric Ives had worked on this too (and I have both the books you mention), but I suppose he was really more of a Tudor era guy.
I've read about this issue before and I think you give as thorough as possible an analysis of the sources of the claim that Edward was previously married to Eleanor Talbot. I think the practical points you mention are the most compelling evidence that it was all part of Richard's attempt to displace his brother's heirs. First, why would Edward marry one English noblewoman and keep it secret and then remain staunchly loyal to a different one, an older woman who already had children and who (if I'm correct about this) was actually of lesser rank than the first? That makes no sense. Second, if there was an alliance he wanted to keep secret, why wouldn't he make absolutely sure to silence the clergyman who was supposed to have performed such a marriage? He was plenty ruthless in his dealings with other enemies, including Henry VI. Most of all, he was fully aware of the importance of cementing the Yorkist claim to the throne and getting himself into a marital mess that would jeopardize his future children's claim to the throne makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, there are an awful lot of holes in the bigamy argument and the timing of it all coming out was deeply suspicious. It wasn't mentioned back in 1470-1 for instance, when Edward was deposed, though that would have been an ideal time. Yes, Lady Eleanor was of a higher rank (if we're looking at her father at least) than Elizabeth. Elizabeth's mother was of very high rank, but children tend to be defined by their fathers in this era.
I think Edward would have kept it secret if he could. He probably went around "marrying" noblewomen he fancied. Embarrassed, the noblewoman probably kept quiet they realized that they had been hoodwinked. Why would Lady Butler keep her marriage secret when he married Elizabeth Woodville? Wouldn't that have been the time to pop up with the news that she was the first wife? Were banns called for his marriage to Elizabeth? Who were the witnesses besides Jacquetta? The marriage was not conducted in public, making the ceremony problematic. Why didn't the Duke of Clarence, Edward's heir, conduct his own research on the validity of the marriage? Not only did Elizabeth Woodville marry the king but she seemed to have him fulfill her every demand. What hold did Elizabeth have over Edward that he risked so much on her behalf?
I think it was all highly suspect, because determining the legitimacy of a marriage was a matter for the church, not the king’s uncle, or parliament. That was one of the reasons Henry VIII’s divorce dragged on. Also, had there been any question about the legitimacy of Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage, it would have been easy enough to get the church to legitimize it. After Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth, he must have been strongly encouraged by his family and by his advisors to find a reason to annul the marriage. He chose not to do so, and after that, no one questioned the legitimacy of the marriage. The Earl of Warwick, when he attempted to overthrow Edward, accused Elizabeth’s mother, Jaquetta of Luxembourg, of performing witchcraft in order to bring the marriage about. If there had been another previous marriage, it seems like someone would have come to him at the time and told him about it.
I agree with you. Knowing the importance of securing the throne with a York heir, Why would Edward risk it, during such a volatile and unsettled times, with the possible unseating of his heirs, due to a secret marriage to another woman besides Elizabeth Woodville? It makes no sense.
No holes at all, read the historiography behind Josephine Teys book. All this was known about and published by Stuart historians and by no less a person than Britain's first PM Robert Walpole.
I think you sum it up pretty perfectly: the timing was too convenient. Much like the death of Henry VI, it deserves some suspicious side eyeing, not unquestioning acceptance. Also Edward would have had to have been an idiot of special proportions to have ten children with a woman who wasn't his lawful wife while making no attempt to have any with his actual wife. Especially when two other possible heirs had been knocked out of the line of succession (George's kids), and Richard only had the one son. His family's hold on the throne was way too tenuous to chance that.
@@HistoryCallingThis is why I don’t believe it. If it had really happened Warwick, Clarence or one of the other nobles who disliked the Woodville’s and blew their life up over the conflict would’ve disclosed it publicly long before 1483! At the very least, there would have been some talk, making it into contemporary gossip and subsequently correspondence.
Obviously, Edward proceeded with the plight troth to get into Eleanor Butler’s bed. No one in England found the plight troth surprising. Edward was a notorious womanizer.
@@votersvanguard4898 What rumours do you think Clarence was executed for spreading? No one was shocked by Stillington’s claim. If you read the account of the Privy Council meeting, it is evident that Stillington produced decisive proof. It is no surprise that this evidence did not survive the Tudors. It is a small miracle that one copy of Titulus Regius survived.
I never believed the rumor. The timing is just too convenient. I think Richard was power hungry and was concerned that the woodville's would be Regents while his nephews grow into manhood. I have seen people who seemingly were so sweet and then when money or power comes they will cut out close family members who they've sworn to love. It happens
Too true. The woods are filled with people who achieve sudden fame and success who have to cut off family and friends. Richard really must have detested EW. And I can believe it because he married Warwick's daughter and I'm sure no love was lost because her father ruined himself because he was mad Edward married EW. And he probably told himself he and his line had better claim to the throne via the Bloodlines from his father and his wife's Add in any old deeply buried resentments of Edward who was tall, a physical marvel, gregarious and a natural leader who married a smoking hot wife.... What's that saying when the cat is away the mice will play? Well in this case the cat died and the mouse saw a chance to have power, fame and glory in his own right and not just as a shadow of his brother
The Woodvilles couldn't become regents unless they got rid of Richard. He was the Protector of the Realm. That is what the Woodvilles wanted though and were dismayed that Richard was made Protector.
@@elizabethrusson7495 In his last will, Edward IV appointed both Richard and Elizabeth´s brother to become guardians of his sons. Any new King´s guardian could be made Protector.
Thanks for providing links to the War of the Roses playlist, HC. Your investigative skills are on full display in this entry. I'm thinking of ordering a book on The Pilgrimage of Grace, stemming from my interest in Cromwell and of course, Catherine Parr. Great job as always; don't know what I'd do without my weekly HC fix. 🙏🏼
THANK YOU STEPHEN FOR YOU CONTINUING GENEROSITY. Yes, the Pilgrimage of Grace was an interesting (though ultimately gruesome) event in history. I hope you get a good book on it and enjoy it.
@@chrisbanks6659 I loved Wolf Hall! I'm making my way through the last book of the trilogy. I've read there will be a season 2 which I'm excited about even though I know how it has to end. Cromwell was one ruthless operator but more complex than historians have painted him in the past.
I doubt that Edward IV was a bigamist. I think it is just something Richard III came up with to justify his taking the throne without having to face the issue of the princes in the tower.
I strongly suspect that's the case too, though I admit that Edward was known to engage in reckless marriages (well, one reckless marriage, that we know of).
I agree. I think we would have left his carcass in the parking lot where we found it. He was treated like the king he really was not. I'm convinced he slandered his brother and murdered his nephews out of greed and arrogance. But karma got him in the end.
YEAH. And that murdering Uncle is STILL being staunchly defended by the fanatical Richard III. NO IRREFUTABLE PROOF THATRICHARD WAS INNOCENT. NO EXPLANATION FOR RICHARD'S SAVAGELY ILLEGAL MURDER OF LORD HASTINGS, A CLOSE FRIEND OF EDWARD'S, AND THE ONLY ENGLISH LORD WITH GUTS ENOUGH TO DEFEND THE PRINCES. RICHARD RAN A REIGN OF TERROR UNTIL HE EVIDENTLY BECAME AWARE OF A YORKIST FALLING AWAY AND PULLED A HANDBRAKE TURN IN HIS BEHAVIOR.
Richard had nothing to do with the plight troth revelation. Richard returned to the North immediately after George’s execution and rarely returned to London until Edward’s death. Bishop Stillington had relationships with Edward and George but not with Richard.
@@HistoryCallingOne of the Ricardians found evidence of Edward’s plight troth at the Vatican library. We know Edward was prone to secret relationships. He married Elizabeth when she refused to sleep with him outside of marriage. Eleanor Butler may well have done the same thing. A plight troth was as binding as a wedding in the 15th century.
I only discovered this channel a couple of days ago and I am absolutely hooked. I love history, in particular royal history. These videos are amazing and so informative, and what a great voice for narrating. I love this channel!! ❤😊 xxx
I've heard many times about this rumour, but I always thought that it can't be true. First of all, if lady Eleanor Talbot was indeed married to Edward, I'm pretty sure she would've talked from the moment she heard about her ,,husband's" and Elizabeth Woodville's marriage. I find it strange that this rumour came out only AFTER Edward's death. Second, if Richard was so sure about the fact that his brother's marriage was bigamous and all of his children were illegitimate, why would he try so hard to keep his sons away from the throne by imprisoning them and even killing them? (if he was indeed the murderer) In my opinion Richard was just trying to validate his right to the throne so people would not start a revolt against him. Wonderful video, keep up on the good work :) (Btw, speaking of the Princes in the tower, I think a video about Perkin Warbeck would be interesting)
Edward could have had her conveniently and quietly done away with if she had talked, as Eleanor would surely have realized. The fact that she moved in with her sister and brother-in-law (high-ranking nobles) after the episode, rather than continuing to live in a separate household, could suggest concerns for her safety. As it was, she died somewhat suspiciously during a several-weeks window when her surviving family was conveniently called away by the king to attend an overseas royal wedding. It also appears that Stillington, who probably feared for his own safety, didn't come forward until after Edward's death with this explosive information, so Richard didn't know. Richard was moving forward with all the preparations for young Edward's coronation, including having coins minted, sacred oaths of loyalty taken, and regnal clothing made, until the scandal broke.
Not only would it have been rather odd for Lady Eleanor not to have mentioned to someone that she had happened to marry the King of England (if in fact that had happened), but it would have been odder still if her powerful Talbot family had failed to bring it to public attention. At some time after Eleanor's husband, Thomas Butler, died, her father-in-law apparently took back one of the properties he had settled on the couple; subsequently Edward IV took both properties. Was this, I wonder, when he met (if he did meet) Eleanor? (If so, it does somewhat resemble the pattern of his meeting with Elizabeth Woodville, also a widow older than himself, and possibly also a supplicant.) But why ever would Eleanor keep her silence about a marriage such as this? If Eleanor had gone to Edward to petition about her estates, the rough similarity to Elizabeth Woodville's encounter with his brother might have suggested to Richard III that Eleanor was a good candidate for previous pre-contract. (I have always wondered why Eleanor was pulled out of the hat, besides being conveniently dead.) Given the lack of data about Lady Eleanor--so much is conjecture--one is forced to rely on appearances regarding her, and to me they strongly suggest that Richard made use of her to concoct a marriage that never existed.
Yes, you would expect to have heard something about it during her lifetime if she was the Queen of England, but I suppose she might have worried that she wouldn't be believed and wouldn't be able to prove it. Of course Elizabeth managed to be a secret queen, but that was only for a few months, maximum.
@@HistoryCalling If Eleanor found that Edward was not going to be willing to admit to the marriage, it would indeed have been daunting. I suppose that if she had become pregnant, Edward might have acknowledged her (had they actually married).
@@elizabethrusson7495 Her father was dead, and her 2x great nephew was the Earl of Shrewsbury at the time of Titulus Regius, and Eleanor herself had been dead for 16 years. It's hard to say if any of the earls subsequent to her father received any unusual gifts from Edward, or from Richard. I doubt it would have been necessary at that point. It was not at all unusual for a widowed lady of high rank to enter a convent, so it's also hard to tell whether this was a voluntary or involuntary action on her part.
@@edithengel2284 You are perfectly correct. What we know is that she went to a convent and died never to be heard from again. Speculating on why she didn't speak up is a moot point. The King was very powerful then and there were forces that weren't too happy with all these secret marriages. The fact Edward tried it again with Elizabeth Woodville says that he was entirely capable of a secret marriage before.
I really don’t think the king would have risked his throne for a toss in the hay. You really bring home how desperately Richard III wanted to be king and how conspiracy theories were prevalent long before social media came into play. Excellent video. I love the medieval art you show too. It really sets the mood. Cheers! ❤✌️
Thank you. I love the old artwork too. One of my favourite Disney movies is Sleeping Beauty in fact, in part because I love the whole aesthetic of it. It just looks like an old illuminated manuscript. Also Maleficent scared the pants off me as a child :-)
Did Richard really want to become king, though, or did he just assume that if the Woodvilles took complete power via control of young Edward V that they would have him imprisoned/ executed at the first possible opportunity?
Edward was a rebellious 18 or 19 year old. He was fed up with Warwick telling him what to do. He fell hard for Elisabeth Woodville and secretly married her to get her into bed. This had worked before but this time Warwick found out and was furious. We don't know how Warwick found out but he did and no doubt made Edward stick to his marriage.
THANK YOU SO MUCH @ankitbhattacharjee3077 for your very kind donation to the channel. I'm so glad you enjoyed the video and appreciated the research that went into it, as not everyone does.
Richard III: The relative you'd never, ever, EVER invite to the family's holiday dinner, summer barbeque, etc. He'd be off in a corner, taking notes on everyone, scheming on how to eliminate the ones in his way.
Here is a thing that I did not realize until quite recently: Eleanor Talbot Butler's niece Anne de Mowbray, Countess of Norfolk, the daughter of Eleanor's elder sister Elizabeth and the Duke of Norfolk, was married at about age 5 to Richard, Duke of York, Edward's son and future prince in the Tower (age 4). The marriage took place in January 1477/8 in London. Anne had inherited the huge wealth of the de Mowbrays, but the little girl died at age 8 in 1481. Eleanor Butler was dead by the date of the marriage, but it is hard to imagine Edward's thoughts about this connection, if he had indeed married her. I don't know who little Anne's guardian was at the time the marriage was arranged, but the connections of Edward with Eleanor's family are interesting. (Elizabeth married Norfolk when Eleanor was only 12, so I don't know how well they actually knew each other or whether they maintained whatever connection they had had as young people.) Later thoughts: Edward IV had an illegitimate son named Arthur Plantagenet by Elizabeth Waite, who may be the same person as the Elizabeth Lucy Edward was supposed to have married prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. (Arthur was a courtier attending his half-sister, Queen Elizabeth of York, subsequently his brother in law Henry VII, and then his nephew Henry VIII. He was Constable of Calais, among other positions.) One reason Henry VII may have tried to destroy all mentions of Edward's alleged precontracts to other ladies was not only to protect his wife's legitimacy, but possibly also to defend against the idea that Arthur Plantagenet, if he was Elizabeth Lucy's son, and the result of his parents' possibl legal marriage was a better heir than himself or even his wife. Arthur's first wife was Elizabeth Grey, 6th Baroness Lisle, who was married to Edmund Dudley as her first husband. By that marriage, she was the mother of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, the Protector of Edward VI, and grandmother of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, Elizabeth I's favorite. Arthur's daughters would have been half-sisters of the powerful Northumberland, and aunts of the famous Earl of Leicester, as well as close relatives of the Tudors. Elizabeth Grey was, like little Anne Mowbray, also a niece of Eleanor Talbot Butler's: Cousins who married half-brothers.
in my opinion, Richard III wanted the throne to himself and did whatever was necessary to taint his own bloodline and made his own family members illegitimate just to get on the throne, then he should have seen himself as illegitimate and should never have reigned as sovereign, he got power hungry but thank you very much for another amazing video and I also saw an article that King Charles III is in support of having the remains of the "Princes in the tower" examined, rather excited for that to happen as with the technology that is available now we can find out a lot, regards Elisabeth
I've heard people say before that King Charles is open to examining the supposed bones of the Princes in the Tower. I've never seen that story confirmed, but like yourself I would love it to be true.
I would think if Edward had been a bigamist then Kingmaker Warrick would have used that against him day one as a way pressure him to give up Elizabeth and/or to elevate George as a reasonable stable ruler. He knew his daughter outranked EW in terms of their fathers, so why did he not use that against Edward IV when he openly rebelled against him? But he didn't. He only used the witchcraft accusation to try and rule E&E"s marriage void.
Excellent point. If Warwick and George had known about it, I think they would have mentioned it when they deposed Edward in 1470-1 (or at any other number of times).
@@HistoryCalling I think the "secret" that made Warwick and George feel so entitled is that they knew that Edward IV was illegitimate. When Edward was born, the possibility of inheriting the throne was such a longshot that nobody made a fuss about it. Under ordinary circumstances, the Duke of York would have become king and would have arranged his children's marriage.
@@anthonytroisi6682 There is no evidence that Edward was illegitimate; most of the accusations are circumstantial. Furthermore, since a child born to a married couple was legally considered the child of the husband, and since Edward's father accepted him as his son, he was by law legitimate, no matter what Warwick and George might have thought.
The path to the crown seems to be as tangled and twisted as a briar patch. Nonetheless, I do admire your ability to sort through the thorns. Another very interesting video. Thumbs up. 👍
Very interesting, logical dissection of this historical issue. This has always been a fascinating period in history for me. Thank you for an excellent presentation. Kind Regards, Cherie Foley
Elizabeth Woodville's father may have been a relatively lowly knight but her mother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, was the second wife of John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford. Son of Henry IV & brother to Henry V. Richard Woodville worked for Bedford, as his father had, and there were many raised eyebrows when he wed a woman so far above him. Much like when Catherine of Valois, widow of Henry V, married Edmund Tudor. Both Jacquetta's marriage to Woodville and Valois' marriage to Tudor were carried out in secret, without the legal step of seeking permission from the Royal Council governing for the infant King Henry VI. A similar situation to when Dowager Queen Catherine Parr married Thomas Seymour in 1547.
Catherine married Owen Tudor, not Edmund, he was their first born son and therefore half brother to the King. And Margaret Beaufort, Edmund Tudor's child bride, was the result of another unequal match: John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. One was the son of the King/father to the man who would be King, the other was the daughter of a knight, mistress who eventually became wife. So the Tudor dynasty would never have existed if it weren't for these very scandalous and unequal marriages.
Best shade thrown among all the history channels. Honestly, when you get annoyed or angry about something, I thoroughly enjoy listening to your elegant sass.
I'm a huge fan of Philippa G.'s novels from this period. I consider them well written FICTION, but credit them with making me interested in the historical facts. This is a great example. I did not think Edward IV was a biggimist, but other than thinking it unlikely he could get away with it, I had no facts. I think the timing of it seals it for me.
I just watched “The Lost King” this evening which is all about Phillipa Langley figuring out where Richard III was buried which was underneath a car park in Leicester, England. She and her fellow Ricardians (people who think that Shakespeare gave Richard III a bad reputation and that he was actually a good king who couldn’t have possibly had his 2 nephews, one who was Edward IV’s son the uncrowned king Edward V along with his little brother Richard) killed in the Tower of London. I love Shakespeare’s Richard III and was curious as to what sources he used to base his play on. Sir Thomas More was a great source because he’d written a history of Richard III not terribly long after the Battle of Bosworth and the controversy over his taking the crown for himself although he’d sworn to Edward IV before his untimely death that he would guide and help his nephew to reign well. More was known as a scrupulously honest man. Other early biographers also noted that Richards’s actions were not that of an honest, upright man because he’d publicly shamed his mother by accusing her of adultery resulting in Edward’s birth. Even though Henry VII took the throne after Richard was killed at Bosworth Field he wasn’t particularly liked and respected by his people. Why would people who had nothing to gain say that Richard had usurped the throne from his nephew? Of the many histories of the York family and of Richard III that I have read none have ever convinced me that Edward IV was a bigamist and that his children were illegitimate. Richard might not have been the hunchbacked cripple with a withered arm as Shakespeare portrays him, but he was no saintly, virtuous king either.
Not at all. I think he was in many ways a very good and honest person who certainly didn't deserve his fate. Admittedly I don't think he was a good historian, but that doesn't necessarily make him dishonest. He may well have believed what he wrote, even though there are a lot of clear factual errors in it. Regarding the movie, I watched it in the cinema and found it very strange. The real Philippa Langley can be a bit melodramatic regarding the remains of Richard III, however she's not crazy. Despite that she signed off on a movie that depicted her as someone who had full-blown hallucinations about talking to Richard IIII (or rather an actor who her character had seen portraying him). I also found it a bit insulting to her that the character based on her had to be given an ex-husband and a couple of cute kids to make her 'relatable' never mind the weirdest case of ME I've ever seen which just disappeared anytime she needed to run somewhere, but was there when she needed to compare herself to Richard and his scoliosis. That part had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer by the way.
@monicacall7532, Thomas More was 5 at the time of Bosworth, so there's no way he could have written a history of Richard III "not terribly long" after the battle! 😁
Of course, the 'Princes in the Tower' is a misnomer. For young Edward was already King of England at the time of the boy’s imprisonment. But I understand 'Princes in the Tower' has a nicer ring to it, than the 'King and the Prince in the Tower', so it’s no wonder that the misnomer stuck.😁
Yes, you're spot on. I discuss that in my video on the two boys, however as you say the fact that it has a nice ring has made it very famous and for a general audience it's a quicker way to get across to them who I'm talking about. It's not even a contemporary name though.
I have put way too much thought into this. I believe the bigamy story was true, and I would not be shocked if Eleanor Butler was not the only one Edward married. She was just the one that Richard had proof of. In the case of Elizabeth Woodville, her mother, specifically, would have gone running to Margaret of Anjou with the tale. Edward was probably in love with Elizabeth so he just decided to stay married to her. Richard probably didn't think they had proof, if he knew at all about the previous marriage(s) but someone gave it to him after Edward died. I would guess Duchess Cecily knew it was true and stewed about it. However, I do not believe that Edward was illegitimate and I don't believe that she claimed he was. There's nothing in her biography that makes me think that she would do that, even if she did hate Elizabeth Woodville. Here's my speculation: I do think she would loudly hint about some illegitimacy and people assume she was talking about her son and not her grandsons. Combine that with the rumors her son George started before he died about Edward, and the story got twisted. So, yes, I think Edward entered into marriages to get women in bed and therefor the story was true. But I have no idea if it was Stillington or anyone else who told the truth. I also agree that Richard's affection for his wife (who probably despised the Woodville family) make him have far more care for George's children, and if he had lived without his own heir, he may have made restored little Warwick to the sucession.
Stranger things have certainly happened. Whatever way we cut it though, having his nephews killed (which I think he did) was unforgivable and all it bought him was two years on the throne. I see Richard's actions as having led to the downfall of the House of Plantagenet and the rise of the Tudors.
@@HistoryCalling Fair enough. We'll civilly disagree on death of the princes, though. I doubt Richard did because without proof of their deaths, it did little good. I'm not naive that he would have probably eventually done have put the boys to death, as Henry VII did with poor, unfortunate Warwick. But Edward IV? A Medieval Frat Boy if there ever was one. Thanks for all the great content.
@@sdl1ishappy Richard most certainly had his nephews destroyed. He had the most motivation and the most access with which to have it done. He was their protector who had them locked away. No one but his people and their staff had access to the boys If he had no ill intentions towards them, why did he never investigate their disappearance, especially as seeing he would be the first one blamed? If he fully intended to see Edward on the throne the first thing he would have done would have everyone in charge of Edward and his brother in the Tower rounded up and questioned. There's not even an announcement of the boys being dead..they just disappear at the same time as Richard is telling or rather, having it told to anyone who will listen, that Edward was a bigamist and his children bastards and oh look that makes me king now. Nobody even needed to comment on the disappearance because there really was no one to stop Richard and the boys being assumed dead was a fait accomli. As far as Margaret Beaufort, because these type arguments always go there, she had no motivation to destroy those boys. That's a hard sell to murder the children of your future would be ally on the off chance they would agree to support your exiled son with a tenuous at best claim to the throne. Second, Richard had a living son at the time he stole the crown, so practically speaking, destroying those boys only helps Richard and his heir. She had no motivation to do it. The Tudor Woodville alliance came about because hell...we know Elizabeth W's motivation. And for MB, the only way she could ever fully ensure her sons safety is if he became king. Plus as the years went on and those boys were never seen again , it eroded support for Richard(especially after his son died ) which bolstered Tudor support. So yes, Richard had those boys done in quite obviously so.
@sdl1ishappy Feeling the need to underline the above sentence "If he had no ill intentions towards them, why did he never investigate their disappearance". Whether or not Richard ordered the deaths of the boys, or he killed them himself, or even yet suppose they died of sickness; whatever the case be, they were never seen again. Two children, his brother's sons were put into his custody and were never heard from or seen again. it doesn't matter if he didn't order their deaths himself (I believe he did) they were gone, so yes, I absolutely hold him responsible for their disappearance.
Complete nonsense, there is no actual evidence that he married anyone but Elizabeth, let alone several women. And Richard certainly had the princes in the tower killed.
The question I would have raised is; If the marriage of Edward IV and Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate, and therefore any children illegitimate, why kill the boys? (Princes in the tower) Indeed why even imprison the boys in the first place?
They'd always have been a threat to the throne as so many would have believed them legitimate. Someone else asked the same question and I gave a more detailed answer there if you want to have a quick look for it.
Ivve always wondered why Elizabeth didn't raise a stink about Richard kidnapping and killing her sons and declaring them illegitimate after she got out of Sanctuary. Does anyone know?? I just cant comprehend a mother being quiet about any of that
I think the most likely explanation is fear about what would happen to her daughters and herself. She started plotting to dethrone Richard almost right away though, with Lady Margaret Beaufort. I think that says it all about her feelings about him.
I know it's television fiction, but does the White Queen pretty much tell the truth? I realize there's a lot of filler, but it does seem to get the key points across.
Apart from the idea that Elizabeth Woodville and her mother were witches and that Richard of Shrewsbury survived, yes, most of it is actually quite accurate from what I remember.
@@princessoffire1107 It's depiction of Margret Beaufort is very controversial. It portrays her as a Machiavelli figure, which is unsupported by any contemporary evidence and the idea that she was behind the boys deaths is entirely the fictionalizing of Philippa Gregory, relying on the streching of sources and imagination. Nobody at the time considered her a suspect or powerful enough to do such a thing and Henry VII seemed to have no idea if they lived or not. It was also Elizabeth Woodville who reached out to Margret and offered Henry the throne, so she seemed to think they were already dead and Margret (quite naturally) didn't imagine her son taking a throne he was explicitly not an heir to (Henry IV barred all his half siblings and their descendants). The show wrongly portrays this with Margret talking about how obvious it was that her son was a Lancastrian heir and nobody contradicting her. In actuality he was widely considered part of an embarrassing non royal part of the family, which is why Edward was open to letting him live. In reality Jasper Tudor had been leading raids in Wales in order to undermine the Yorkist government and it was the Tudor loyalty to their half brother Henry VI which placed Jasper in danger and Henry by association. Henry had no claim to the throne, which is why so little was made of him in his young life, he was chosen by Elizabeth because he was the right age for her daughter and could potentially lead an army due to his Lancastrian connections (he was also second cousin to the King of France, who gave him support).
When she had to release her daughters to his custody, she did demand that he swear a public oath promising the girls' safety, specifically swearing that he wouldn't put them in the Tower. That might have been the most obvious and public statement on it that she felt she could make under the circumstances. It was mentioned in one of HC's videos (possibly the one on Elizabeth Woodville's?).
I have never taken these accusations serious especially, like you said, because of timing... but still, you hear so many details about it while still having no concrete informations at all that I perfectly understand why it fascinates people so much to imagine Edward IV being bigamous... and why fiction usually takes this version of history...
Yes, the timing was indeed VERY convenient for Richard. Where were these rumours in 1470-1 when Edward had been deposed? You're right though that rumours like this do so well because they're theoretically possible and yet there's no real evidence one way or another. It's what made a smear campaign useful in the 15th century and still makes it useful today.
Richard has many supporters to this day but to me besides all his maneuvering and attempts to rewrite his family history the burning question is what happened to the prince's and why was he never held to account for their disappearance.
THANK YOU EVANSLUCY for your generous donation to the channel. I hope you enjoyed the video and are having a lovely weekend, wherever you are in the world.
It has always seemed like politics to me that Edwards marriage was deemed invalid after his death. Of course Richard wanted the throne for himself. He also likely wanted to harm Elizabeth Woodville as she was so hated.
We'll likely never know the truth for certain, but with what's available, I think the bigamy claims were just a ploy to legitimize Richard III. The thing that sticks out to me the most Is actually the supposed "real wife". If the royal family and court were upset that Edward IV had married a lower-noble Englishwoman instead of a foreign princess, why would his "real" bride also be a lower-noble Irishwoman? (If I have my history right, England had control of much of Ireland then, so it shouldn't have made much difference between her and Woodville.)
Yes, you're right that we're never going to be able to prove this either way, though I suppose that's part of the fun of debating it :-) Regarding Ireland, without boring you with too much detail, England had control of an area called the Pale around Dublin, but much of the Ireland was still under the rule of Irish lords.
I don’t doubt Edward IV could have technically been “married” before, not what we would considered legal today but 100% binding at the time. But, if Elizabeth had a coronation and was anointed with holy oil, she was no fake queen. Her children being legitimate is a legal question for the time. Seems like even if they were not children of the king and in line for the throne, they would still technically be princes and princesses, but that’s too messy to even think about.
And don't forget that Thomas More was a protege of Bishop Morton who openly detested Richard III while he was still Duke of York. So we really don't know how much More wrote and how much he was just parenting Morton. And it's interesting that war was doing research on the subject of the princes in the tower but he suddenly stopped writing his history. It was incomplete. And this was way before his death. Of course there's inaccuracies in his version of the alleged death of the princes. Some really glaring ones. So I agree with you that as a source he is definitely not to be relied on. He reminds me of the movies that are "kbased on a historical story."
I always have such a hard time when it comes to Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV’s love story. I just can’t stop applying modern thinking to their marriage. Edward had affairs and to me cheating on your spouse does not mean you love them. It’s hard for me to reconcile that.
I know what you mean. I've never been able to understand how a society which prided itself on being so much more religious than in modern times, nevertheless had so much in the way of adultery, murder and the mistreatment of groups like women, children and the poor. It's hard to see their Christian values sometimes.
@@HistoryCallingit was thought that a powerful man could afford more women. It was generally accepted that a king would have Mistresses. They were just for fun. A lot of them still otherwise it's certainly would want a legitimate wife and legitimate Offspring to follow him to the throne so
Oh yes, they wanted to have their cake and eat it, meaning wives and legitimate children on one hand and mistresses and a reputation for Godliness on the other. I just think (and I'm sure lots of others at the time did too) that you're kidding yourself if you think you can have all of those things. According to their own religious beliefs, they were condemning themselves to hell the way a lot of them carried on. I'm just surprised this doesn't seem to have concerned more of them.
I know. The Plantagenets really did tear themselves to pieces. If they'd had more family loyalty they'd have been able to hang onto the throne. They were so strong that no one but themselves could ruin them. It's like a Greek tragedy.
I smell something rotting as Richard only brings up the bigamy after his brother and the supposed wife were dead and can’t confirm or deny the accusation and it seems that no one else was supporting the accusation beyond the clergy.
I'm coming a bit late to this party, but here are my thoughts. It seems to me that there are parallels in how Edward is alleged to have treated Eleanor Talbot and how we know he treated Elizabeth Woodville. Edward was a womaniser. Its not impossible that he went through a secret marriage to Eleanor to get her into his bed, then pulled the same trick with Elizabeth. The difference was that Elizabeth became pregnant, so he decided to recognise the marriage as he needed an heir. It probably counted in his calculations that Elizabeth was the daughter of Jacquetta who as the widow of Royal Duke was a women of standing. Eleanor had no important relatives to fight her corner. Of course we will never know the truth, but the idea that Edward preyed on widows of gentle birth and promised marriage to get them into his bed is not impossible.
Historians now: don't say a word unless you can properly cite it and defend it. Historians then: "a cow told me in a dream that the prince had an affair with a nun. So i'm gonna write that down as fact. Maybe draw him fighting a snail for the hell of it."
Regardless of what side of the coin you are on, there is a fact that some do miss. Eleanor Butler died in 1468 before either of the princes were born, Edward was born 2 years later in 1470 and Richard in 1473.If Edward had married her, only Elizabeth of York born in 1466 while Eleanor was still alive would be truly illegitimate.
While I see your point, I don’t believe that’s how it works. Let’s pretend that Eleanor was indeed his wife. Her death does not automatically make his second wife, a real wife. The laws against bigotry don’t recognize more than the first legitimate wife. He would have had to marry Elizabeth AFTER Eleanor’s death, for any of their children to be legitimate
@@Roguestatus33 Even if Edward was a widower from the first (alleged) marriage when the princes were born, since he had not yet remarried their mother before their birth, they would still be illegitimate.The children would remain illegitimate unless legitimized by the Pope and/or Parliament, as the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt were.
Fun Fact: Empress Elizabeth of Russia (much like Mary I) was engaged to the heir of french but because she married out of wedlock and her mother wasn't the right birth, the marriage was cut off.
It was a particularly dangerous time to be close to the throne and Richard does seem to be the most likely culprit of the deaths of his nephews. I find him an enigma personally. As for Edward IV, it seems a really dimwitted move to put the future legitimacy of your children and their claim to the throne at risk. He doesn't strike me as that dumb.
Yes, Richard is interesting, isn't he? He seems to have been genuinely devoted to Edward in his lifetime and yet I have next to no doubt that he killed his brother's sons within about 3 months of Edward's death. It's sociopathic.
Maybe it’s too modern a point of view, but it’s my opinion that if you’re seen to be married, you have a wedding ceremony, you then live the rest of your life as a married couple, that means you’re married. Prior betrothals be dammed. If a betrothal was all that was necessary to make a marriage, then a betrothal agreement could never be broken before the wedding and there’d be no reason for anyone to have the actual wedding, would there?
Speaking of Thomas Moore, how would your list of ‘Tudor Thomas’s” go? (this includes Moore, Cromwel, Cranmer, Wolsey, Seymour and Culpepper or however you write his name lol)
Hmm, interesting question. I maybe don't know enough about all of them to give a watertight answer, but my initial response, from best to worst is: More, Wolsey, Cranmer, Cromwell, Seymour, Culpepper.
I dont believe that Edward was illegitimate. Richard III and his mother hated Elizabeth and her family. IMO Richard stole the throne with the encouragement of his mother. Also, Jaquetta was royal and married to the uncle of Henry VI. The rumours were probably started because previously the family had been Lancastrians
Cecily Neville's actions and motives are fascinating to speculate on. Edward V was her grandson after all. It's pretty awful to think she countenanced having him ousted from the throne, even if it was for one of her sons and even if she disliked his mother.
@@HistoryCalling that's what's so baffling about the whole thing. Remember that Margaret of Anjou had her husband and son executed. I think that may be where we get the idea
Hmm, I don't think Margaret had Cecily's son Edmund and her husband executed. She wasn't even at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460 and they died during or directly after that Battle.
The Duke of Clarence floated the Eleanor Butler rumor when he was trying to usurp Edward IV’s throne, which was a factor in him being executed as a traitor., but Richard supported Edward against Clarence and Warwick, so this was a VERY convenient 180 on Richard’s part. Considering the way Richard was executing people who stood against him it’s understandable why nobody would question this. As far as Edward IV being illegitimate the reasons for this rumor are absurd and not at all based in fact. They base this on the idea that Edward would have been born at 38 weeks for Richard of York to be the father but he was not unhealthy. The fact that he was tall is also silly. My sister is 5’3” and her husband is 5’9” and their son is 6’2” so this is far from evidence of paternity. Cecily was a pious, proud noblewoman who believed her husband was the rightful king and would be crowned, and she would risk that by booking up with a lowly archer within a week of him leaving to fight a war. They also want on to have 12 children in total so clearly they had a fruitful marriage. However, even if this was true it doesn’t excuse Richard murdering children, and if his claim was SO waterproof than why did the princes have to die? BTW… Richard IS behind their murders he has the strongest motive, they were locked in the most secure building at the time and there is NO WAY Richard would have allowed ANYONE he didn’t trust completely to get anywhere near those boys. He knew his nephews favored the Rivers family to him and he might have lost EVERYTHING if Edward V had been king; it was too big a risk for him to take. I think Elizabeth Woodville was a true queen but her insatiable ambition probably got her sons killed. If Richard felt secure of being regent until Edward reached legal age and then continue to be a counselor to the king none of this may have happened.
I bet I'm not the only one here who is now clamoring for a History Calling vs.Thomas More cage match.(My money's on HC!). Having recently re-watched the Zinnemann film, I would love to see entries on More's scholarship as well as his life and death.
Oh no you do NOT call my great grandmother “fake”! 😂 I think if Eleanor Butler had married Edward and wanted to be his wife, she would’ve thrown down her claim pretty fast. It was completely a ruse to delegitimize the children so Richard III could steal the throne.
If he was suppose to mary Buttler and any other marriage would be not a real marriage then why did warrick try to Marry him to bona of France? If waarover didnt care about previous arrangements then why is it now a problem? Why did They accept Elizabeth as queen when they were not really married?
Bishop Stillington was close to George, Duke of Clarence, and George was executed by Edward IV for spreading rumors about him. Richard strongly opposed the execution. After Edward’s death Richard obviously was making arrangements for young Edward’s coronation. Richard was not at the meeting where Stillington, whom Richard barely knew, made the announcement that he had plight trothed Eleanor Butler and Edward before his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. From the account of the meeting it seems evident that Stillington had a document recording the plight troth. According to canon law, this plight troth was valid and it meant the children of Edward and Elizabeth were illegitimate. The boys were not imprisoned in the Tower. It was where kings awaited coronation. After Richard was given the throne, the boys were seen frequently playing in the gardens. Then, shortly after the Buckingham rebellion, they vanished from sight. There was as no reason for Richard to have them killed. If he had, he would have presented their bodies to the country, claimed they had died from one of the diseases endemic to children, and buried them with honor. Richard was not a stupid man. The children disappeared. They could have been sent to the castle at Middleham, where the rest of the royal children lived. There was a persistent story in the Tyrell family that the boys lived for a time at their home with their mother. They could also hav been sent to Burgundy to Richard’s sister, Margaret whose account rolls contain a record of money spent to raise Yorkist heirs. We know what happened to the Yorkists who survived Richard. They were executed by Henry VII and Henry VIII. Edward probably died. He was under the care of a doctor for an abscess in his mouth. I have always wondered if Richard became Perkin Warbeck. He was accepted by the nobility of Europe, Scotland, and Ireland. His portraits bear an uncanny resemblance to Edward IV. Elizabeth Woodville left sanctuary, brought her daughters to court, asked her son from her first marriage to return to England and cast his lot with Richard, accepted land and a generous stipend from Rchad and seemed to live happily enough untilmHenry VII stripped her of land and stipend and had her imprisoned in a convent for the rest of her life. It is hard to believe she would entrust her other children to Richard if she thought he had murdered her young sons.
I have always thought why would Warwick be searching abroad for a suitable match for Edward if he was already promised or indeed married already? Why was Warwick so furious when Edward married Elizabeth? Could it because his plans were thwarted and because Elizabeth’s first husband was on the Lancastrian side at his death? It appears to me that Elizabeth made herself unpopular by pushing her family members into royal circles which would have started or at least contributed to any vendetta against her. Also if Eleanor Talbot was married to Edward why did she not make a fuss as she was still alive for four years after the Woodville marriage? Whilst I am a descendant of Elizabeth I am also of Richard Duke of York’s and Warwick’s lines too so can see objectively.
History calling I have a question now you know when Cathrine of Aragon was still alive in 1533 when Elizabeth the 1 was born and you know how people still had the backing of Mary the 1 Cathrine of Aragon daughter and her then do you think if Henry the 8 gave Anne Boleyn the annulment sent her away could she have been a threat and people questioning the legitimacy of Edward the 6 when he is born or when he comes king of England because obviously Cathrine Howard would be no threat because she had no kids with Henry the 8 but if Anne Boleyn got her annulment could their still been some kind of talk on which child was legitimate and which child is not like when Cathrine of Aragon was still alive when Henry the 8 and Anne Boleyn got married and had their daughter 🤔
Brilliant! Thankyou for covering this! I've always thought it was most likely just Ricardian propaganda, since it magically appeared at such a convenient time, after seemingly never being mentioned before- which is ridiculous, as you say- & since there's no actual evidence of it, but this excellent examination of the sources makes me quite happy to dismiss it entirely. I didn't know the story of a Bishop Stillington helpfully telling Richard about it might not be what actually happened though, that's interesting.
The other thing a lot people who argue the children were illegitimate forget is that it wasn’t true. The marriage with Elizabeth Woodville had been accepted as legitimate for nearly 20 year. To have the marriage annulled would have required a court declaration of annulment. That would have required the evidence being looked at. Richard at no time brought the case to a canon court to look at. Therefore, the marriage remained on foot and the boys and thus Edward V the true king. Arguably that changed with the passage of Titulus Regis, with gave the crown to Richard. However, what one Parliament gave, another could take away and as other Parliament could repeal the Titulus Regis, which Henry VII. Edward V and his brother were always a threat.
The marriage with Elizabeth would not need annulment if it had been bigamous. In that case there would be no marriage to annul. But you are correct that the issue of possible bigamy was an ecclesiastical issue, and neither king nor Parliament had any rights to make a judgment on it. Richard had no right to adjudge the children illegitimate.
@@edithengel2284 Ummm- yes it would. Henry VIII said his marriage was invalid, but he still had to get a church court to say so. He couldn’t remarry without his first marriage being annulled. That was the entire point of the King’s Great Matter. In fact I think the fact he married Anne Boleyn before the decree is what his marriage to Anne a little dicey.
@@brontewcat I think we might be talking past each other. Just to clarify: which marriage are you referring to when you say "to have the marriage annulled would have required a court declaration of annulment"? Presuming Edward had actually married Eleanor, as long as she was alive, their marriage would have had to be annulled to enable him legally to marry Elizabeth. (Obviously, if Eleanor were dead, and Edward wished to regularize his marriage with Elizabeth, he could go ahead and just remarry her. The children would still be illegitimate, however, though they could have been legitimated by the Pope and/or Parliament, as John of Gaunt's Beaufort children were.) I was speaking about Elizabeth and Edward's marriage, which is the one referred to just be fore the sentence I quoted, and which I assumed you meant. But I'm guessing you meant Edward and Eleanor's marriage. Yes, if an annulment was necessary, to marry Anne before Henry got it was a little dicey. It made a nonsense of everything he did to poor Katherine.
@@edithengel2284 No I meant Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage. Even today void marriages need a declaration of nullity. Once a couple go through a ceremony of marriage, the marriage must be either dissolved through divorce or formally declared void. I am pretty sure there is a presumption a marriage is legal until it is declared not to be. I will check this however.
@@edithengel2284 I checked, and I was wrong about the presumption. So what I checked was the position of marriages under the common law, At common law there is a distinction between void and voidable marriages. Void marriages are void ab initio - that is from the start. It was understood to void by the parties. It did not need a declaration. It is also a common law concept, not a concept at canon law. A voidable marriage was a concept derived from canon law. That is a marriage that was regarded as valid by at least one of the parties. From the Court’s point of view the marriage was valid until a court declared it not be. As Elizabeth Woodville and the public regarded her marriage as valid, it would be a voidable marriage and regarded at common and canon law as valid until it was declared not to be.
Curious. Lady Eleanor Butler was being dispossed of property by her father-in-law when Edward intervened. So he was involved with her. A pre-contract? The Talbots were Lancastrians. Her father John Talbot presented Margaret of Anjou a Book of Hours. Sadly another Talbot was slain at Northampton and her relative Sir Gilbert Talbot led a wing of Henry VII's cavalry at Bosworth. If the circumstances were right Edward could be magnimous to his enemies, echoes of the Woodville connection. Edward seemed headstrong and let his best supporter, Richard Neville, down when on an embassy to secure the hand of Bonne of Savoy. To an ally who had fought for him to be treated so must have been exasperating. Warwick was the prime-mover at First St. Albans when the Yorks has few nobles.
Do you mean Elizabeth Woodville was in a property dispute at the time Edward seems to have met her? Yes, I agree Edward was short-sighted to treat Warwick in the way that he did, but then Warwick was perhaps short-sighted too to demand so much and then turn on his King like a spoilt toddler having a tantrum when he didn't get everything he wanted. You can argue it both ways.
@@HistoryCalling Eleanor's father-in-law, took back one of the two properties he had settled on her and her husband, probably unlawfully. (Edward took them both. If he had married Eleanor, it's a bit hard to explain that.)
Why wouldn't Eleanor or Stillington out the king? That seems obvious. Either of them would be risking their lives, for very little if any gain. Edward had clearly moved on and wouldn't have returned to Eleanor or made her queen. Medieval kings often permanently silenced those who threatened their power, stability, or desires, and Edward was no exception; he had his own brother (George) executed (amongst others). There was no point during Edward's lifetime when the secret could be safely divulged. Moreover neither Eleanor nor Stillington (nor anyone else who may have known about the previous marriage), could have objected during the Wydville "marriage" ceremony when it happened because it was held so secretly.
It wasn't Richard who claimed that Edward had previously been married, it was Bishop Stillington, who claimed to have been a party to the earlier contract..
Richard's Titulus Regis was over egging the pudding a bit. He had to come up with a reasonable and believable explanation as to why his nephew, the Prince of Wales would not be ascending to the throne. Making him illegitimate also has the benefit of stopping any revolt or uprising in his name. Richard was at least in Edward IVs good books when Warwick was busy negotiating a foreign marriage and no mention of any pre-contract was raised then. This marriage to Eleanor only 'came out' after Edward IVs death. Had this marriage been true, the time to raise it would have been years before when Edward pulled Elizabeth out of his hat like a rabbit. Instead the Lords, including Richard & Warwick just muttered about it, disliking Elizabeth's vast family.
I doubt that Edward IV was a bigamist. I've read that Richard III claimed that Lady Eleanor had actually been contracted to marry Edward before his union with Elizabeth Woodville. In the 15th century, that precontract was enough to make any subsequent marriage unvalid. So Richard III argued that when Edward married Elizabeth, their children that will come were stripped of all their succession rights. Eleanor was a silent witness in that occasion as she was already died in 1468 and so couldn't face interrogation over the state of her relationship with Edward.With both absent from the debate, Richard III had advantage in his argument and also his nephews disappeared from the Tower of London, while their sisters went from being eligible princesses to illegitimate. Great job as always, thanks.
Eleanor might have been persuaded by her family not to mention it. We don't know if they were paid off or if they feared the wrath of the king or the Kings counselors. If you do a later video, could you delve a little more into clearance. I seem to remember but I do not know how good the source was that he also was claiming that his brother was illegitimate. Of course, it was known that he wanted the throne for himself. So there's an obvious bias there. But I would like to hear those side issues also.
Elizabeth is my 18th great grandmother. I love her, I think of her life and I feel sorry for her. My lineage comes to her through her first husband, John Grey of Groby and their son Sir Thomas III 1st Marquess of Dorset Grey - it's such a scandalous story.
It sounds to me that the whole thing was made up. There were a lot of things going around that were made up on both sides to discredit the other, so i would be surprised if this wasn't one of them.
Yes, I suspect the same. When someone wanted to nick the throne from someone else there was always a very convenient excuse that suddenly appeared to make it seem like they were the true king.
I don't believe it. Even if you ignore all the years of civil war & the unrest & propaganda that brings, this first came out at a time when Richard III was at his most powerful. That power & influence, along with the less substantial belief of stability from Richard would so easily cause people to say anything that suits his cause & their own future prospects. In a time when building a new church, paying for prayers for your soul & confession would forgive all sin & ensure a quick passage to heaven, why wouldn't someone lie for their king or blacken a dead man's name? So I can't believe any of the sources...but as with the deaths of the princes, I can also imagine it being seen as "for the greater good", to bring the country back together under someone that was seen as a strong leader...until he wasn't! 😏 It strikes me as interesting how changes in the understanding of language plays a part here too. Just as you adjusted the wording because it's meaning has taken a less literal slant, some of the descriptors used in reference to the marriage may have been meant in a less literal sense at the time. (If I weren't on my phone, I could go back & find specific examples of this.) I'm talking about what might just've been semantics: "an offensive marriage" could be simply upsetting to the barons, to other ambitious royals, to the population at large due to rumours...or in the eyes of God (namely, powerful members of the clergy). If viewed like that, using a more easily understood term for a marriage to be labelled as ungodly & therefore unlawful isn't much of a leap. I know, I haven't expressed my reasoning very well, sorry! 😕 That document from parliament just struck me so much like something a modern politician might produce that we all know not to take literally.
Your point on changing language is so interesting, as I quite like seeing how words have changed too. One of my favourites is divers, which to us means people who swim around underwater but to out ancestors meant 'many'. There are Shakespeare couplets which were obviously meant to rhyme too, but which now don't because pronunciations have changed so much. It's a fascinating little sub-field of history.
@@HistoryCalling That's a good example (that I've never heard before but will now look up!). It can't have just changed meaning entirely one day, it must've been a process over time. I like how you go back & look for original sources, it's one of the reasons I appreciate your channel. Yet, just as we can't judge historical figures by modern standards, we should remember we effectively speak a different language even when the words are still in our dictionaries! It amazes me to think of how many jokes from Shakespeare are either lost to time or require long, detailed explanations. They were written, in many cases, for the masses to enjoy, no education required but they go over our heads. Almost like trying to explain to a younger person why a 20yr old film was so groundbreaking when it was released because they don't share the same cultural references that form your argument...& that's WITH RUclips to help demonstrate. 😂
I'm unsure on it, personally. I have a book to read about Eleanor, but it's a very interesting idea. I don't think Cecily committed adultery, and I don't think Richard would have said so (because what's to stop people calling him illegitimate if he claims his mother is adulterous?). I do also think there's a good chance the Woodville/Grey clan wouldn't have settled for Richard being Lord Protector and would have likely moved to remove him - and Edward V was more likely to listen to them, so I'm not sure if Richard DID make up claims whether he'd have done it out of being power hungry, rather than being worried he was about to be removed. Basically, I'm unsure on everything :D
I suspect a secret membership that obligated him to help or a good christian act of saving a widow with children. The first husband’s death may have had an obligation to provide for his family in the event of his death.
No fear, I'm here, on my rear, to hear, with no beer, History Calling's bloodless video, oh dear. :) Watching this now, I take a bow. Edit 1: Bad algorithm, bad. It doesn't like swearing. A narrator can talk about blood drenched stories, but no cursing, odd...
@@HistoryCalling Somethin to lighten the mood of the bloody (I use the word bloody here as a yank (me) would use it)), soap operatic tales of the dark and dreary past of England, which is very bloody fascinating! :)
So was Anne (Neville), Richard’s wife still alive when the Princes in the Tower disappeared? I’m not sure of the timeline, I just know she died, their son died, the princes presumably died…. I can see her protecting Isabel’s child, if she could.
Anne was the last of them to die. Isabellas children were already in their custody, along with the Warwick fortune. The princes were taken to the tower. Richard then declared them illegitimate by both their parents marriage and Edward IV being illegitimate, neither was public knowledge before this time and it doesn't seem to have been believed by the nation. Parliament accepted this and declared Richard the King. The children disappeared around the time of the.coronation. Anne was the queen and their son, another Edward the prince. An attempt was made to free the princes in the tower involving the earl of Richmond (Richards major supporter) and Margaret Beaufort and Henry Tudor are exposed as the challengers and conspires to the throne. A few years into a very stressful reign prince Edward , Richards child died. Anne became ill shortly after and passes away. It's difficult to know what she thought of events. There must have been a lot of pain and distrust within the family. But there is no evidence she was ever against her husband. It's easy to imagine Richard was not in a good state of mind when Henry returned soon after this. Richard lost to his smaller, downhill and sunfacing army at Bosworth after a risky charge at Henry.
It's interesting to think about Edward IV's marriage(s) in the modern context of consent. Consider that Eleanor (Talbot) Butler was a widow and possibly in a vulnerable situation, especially considering her late husband had been a Lancastrian, and now the Yorks were in power. Edward was the king, and his subjects were bound to obey him (yes?). If he had taken a fancy to Eleanor and wanted to bed her, could she really have told him "no"? In addition to that, Edward IV was just a huge guy, IIRC the tallest English king in history. It seems plausible to me that the only way Eleanor could submit to his sexual advances while still maintaining a shred of dignity was to insist they at least go through a form of marriage. It's entirely possible she didn't want to marry him and only went to bed with him because she literally had no other choices. This might explain why she never said anything. I've read that she later went into a convent but was basically a "lay sister" when she died, having not taken the vows of a nun. (Could a woman become a nun if she were married, without a husband's consent, or would the marriage have to be annulled first?) As for the Talbot family's reaction, did they even know this had happened? Where was Eleanor living at the time? (I.e., was she physically isolated?) Is that known? It's entirely possible Eleanor had no interest in Edward, no interest in being queen, and therefore kept quiet. If she really hadn't wanted him, it's possible she was just as relieved that he married another woman. Consider also Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, which was conducted in secret--he had to have known this was going to make a lot of people angry, including Warwick, who was trying to negotiate a political match for him at the time. If a first marriage did indeed exist, it might not have been possible to have it annulled quickly/ secretly enough in order to marry Elizabeth, and by the time Edward was married to her, applying for an annulment would have exposed the bigamy of his second marriage. So he said nothing about it, maybe giving enough favors/ lucrative offices to Skillington to keep him happy/ quiet, imprisoning as a threat him if he worried Skillington was going to shoot his mouth off. (I also read that in addition to ordering all copies of Titulus Regius destroyed, Henry VII imprisoned Skillington, where he died. Whatever Henry may have personally believed about Edward IV's marital shenanigans, it would seem he wasn't taking any chances). It's possible Edward was just egotistical enough to think he could get away with bigamy, that he was powerful enough so that nobody would challenge him, especially once Eleanor was dead. Maybe he figured Skillington would die, too, and nobody would know. He probably never dreamed he would die so young, with his heir still six years away from his majority. This is all speculation on my part, but it's something to consider.
Some very fair points. I don't know if we have any evidence that Edward was prone to forcing himself on women (one story is that he had to marry Elizabeth because she wouldn't sleep with him any other way but suggests he wasn't prepared to attack her), but it's certainly possible that Eleanor felt pressured into whatever scenario might or might not have occurred between them.
@@HistoryCalling The problem is the dearth of information on almost anything to do with Eleanor. We know very little about even just the outline of her life, and nothing about her character or her relations with her powerful family. We aren't even quite sure when her husband died. (Not that we know very much about Edward's approach to women, either.). Do we even have evidence that Edward and Eleanor ever met, or were in the same place at the same time. (I know she had a property dispute with her father-in-law, but did she present a petition to the king personally?) There seem to be no fixed points here at all. We can only speculate, as happy commuter interestingly does.
Do you think Edward IV was a bigamist? Let me know below and remember to check out:
BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG
Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/
Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling
Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
Probably not, but still watching your video
Thank you :-)
No, his brother/s probably spread the rumor to justify taking his throne and delegitimizing his children. The Yorks spread a lot of propaganda about their enemies, and then themselves when they turned on each other.
Yes, talk about a family destroying itself. It's very House of the Dragon.
Speculation is not ever evidence. Neither for nor against.
I've been fascinated by Elizabeth Woodville's story since watching The White Queen (you're probably cringing). I've loved learning medieval times up to the Tudors, but with all the moving parts and people, it was easier to understand with characters playing roles rather than reading names and trying to keep track. Now that I have a better grasp of who was who, I'm relearning the correct history, not the fictional one I started with. So, thank you for this video!
No cringing at all. I watched it too and as long as people do what you do (check their facts), I don't have any issue with shows like that. It was actually more accurate than many other supposedly historical shows and movies (looking at you Reign).
If you got you interested in looking further into the history of the actual people then the show has done its job
@@HistoryCallingOh, Reign... so, so inaccurate!
Yea same! I loved seeing the characters, and following along with the basic storyline makes watching videos like this much easier to comprehend
@@giggle_snortlet’s not talk about that atrocity 😂
Something else worth considering is that Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was only 12 when Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville. He therefore would have been even younger at the time of the alleged Butler marriage. How likely is it, therefore, that he even knew about it? Also, prior to 1483, did Richard even know Robert Stillington? I've never read that this was a man who worked for Richard or owed him any kind of favors, and after Richard was king, it doesn't appear that Stillington benefited in any way (unless Richard just slipped him some money, not wanting to be obvious about it?). If Richard invented the story of his brother's bigamy, why choose Stillington, of all people, to provide the evidence? Did he just pick some random churchman and tell him, "I'm making a bid for the throne; can you please provide me with a plausible cover story?" And Stillington said, "Sure," without even getting some kind of reward in return?
All this makes me wish Eric Ives had lived long enough to write a biography of Richard III. His books on Anne Boleyn and Lady Jane Grey were SO well-researched, and he was relentless in his interrogation of the primary sources.
Thanks, HC, as always for another fascinating and thought-provoking video!
THANK YOU HAPPYCOMMUTER for your generous donation to the channel. Yes, you're correct that Richard would have been pretty young at the time of both marriages (or supposed marriage) and likely left relying on the word of others regarding what had or hadn't happened. I don't know all the ins and outs of Richard's relationship with Stillington, but Stillington was a prominent churchman, so they may well have had dealings. Like yourself, I wish Eric Ives had worked on this too (and I have both the books you mention), but I suppose he was really more of a Tudor era guy.
@@HistoryCalling It's my pleasure to support your channel! Your videos are so much fun.
I've read about this issue before and I think you give as thorough as possible an analysis of the sources of the claim that Edward was previously married to Eleanor Talbot. I think the practical points you mention are the most compelling evidence that it was all part of Richard's attempt to displace his brother's heirs. First, why would Edward marry one English noblewoman and keep it secret and then remain staunchly loyal to a different one, an older woman who already had children and who (if I'm correct about this) was actually of lesser rank than the first? That makes no sense. Second, if there was an alliance he wanted to keep secret, why wouldn't he make absolutely sure to silence the clergyman who was supposed to have performed such a marriage? He was plenty ruthless in his dealings with other enemies, including Henry VI. Most of all, he was fully aware of the importance of cementing the Yorkist claim to the throne and getting himself into a marital mess that would jeopardize his future children's claim to the throne makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, there are an awful lot of holes in the bigamy argument and the timing of it all coming out was deeply suspicious. It wasn't mentioned back in 1470-1 for instance, when Edward was deposed, though that would have been an ideal time. Yes, Lady Eleanor was of a higher rank (if we're looking at her father at least) than Elizabeth. Elizabeth's mother was of very high rank, but children tend to be defined by their fathers in this era.
I think Edward would have kept it secret if he could. He probably went around "marrying" noblewomen he fancied. Embarrassed, the noblewoman probably kept quiet they realized that they had been hoodwinked. Why would Lady Butler keep her marriage secret when he married Elizabeth Woodville? Wouldn't that have been the time to pop up with the news that she was the first wife? Were banns called for his marriage to Elizabeth? Who were the witnesses besides Jacquetta? The marriage was not conducted in public, making the ceremony problematic. Why didn't the Duke of Clarence, Edward's heir, conduct his own research on the validity of the marriage? Not only did Elizabeth Woodville marry the king but she seemed to have him fulfill her every demand. What hold did Elizabeth have over Edward that he risked so much on her behalf?
I think it was all highly suspect, because determining the legitimacy of a marriage was a matter for the church, not the king’s uncle, or parliament. That was one of the reasons Henry VIII’s divorce dragged on. Also, had there been any question about the legitimacy of Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage, it would have been easy enough to get the church to legitimize it.
After Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth, he must have been strongly encouraged by his family and by his advisors to find a reason to annul the marriage. He chose not to do so, and after that, no one questioned the legitimacy of the marriage.
The Earl of Warwick, when he attempted to overthrow Edward, accused Elizabeth’s mother, Jaquetta of Luxembourg, of performing witchcraft in order to bring the marriage about. If there had been another previous marriage, it seems like someone would have come to him at the time and told him about it.
I agree with you. Knowing the importance of securing the throne with a York heir, Why would Edward risk it, during such a volatile and unsettled times, with the possible unseating of his heirs, due to a secret marriage to another woman besides Elizabeth Woodville? It makes no sense.
No holes at all, read the historiography behind Josephine Teys book. All this was known about and published by Stuart historians and by no less a person than Britain's first PM Robert Walpole.
I think you sum it up pretty perfectly: the timing was too convenient. Much like the death of Henry VI, it deserves some suspicious side eyeing, not unquestioning acceptance.
Also Edward would have had to have been an idiot of special proportions to have ten children with a woman who wasn't his lawful wife while making no attempt to have any with his actual wife. Especially when two other possible heirs had been knocked out of the line of succession (George's kids), and Richard only had the one son. His family's hold on the throne was way too tenuous to chance that.
Yes, timing is everything here I think. It's very odd that the story never came up at any other time, not even when Edward had been deposed in 1470-1.
@@HistoryCallingThis is why I don’t believe it. If it had really happened Warwick, Clarence or one of the other nobles who disliked the Woodville’s and blew their life up over the conflict would’ve disclosed it publicly long before 1483! At the very least, there would have been some talk, making it into contemporary gossip and subsequently correspondence.
Obviously, Edward proceeded with the plight troth to get into Eleanor Butler’s bed. No one in England found the plight troth surprising. Edward was a notorious womanizer.
@@emmarichardson965 Heck, Edward had bastards all over England.
@@votersvanguard4898 What rumours do you think Clarence was executed for spreading? No one was shocked by Stillington’s claim. If you read the account of the Privy Council meeting, it is evident that Stillington produced decisive proof. It is no surprise that this evidence did not survive the Tudors. It is a small miracle that one copy of Titulus Regius survived.
I never believed the rumor. The timing is just too convenient. I think Richard was power hungry and was concerned that the woodville's would be Regents while his nephews grow into manhood. I have seen people who seemingly were so sweet and then when money or power comes they will cut out close family members who they've sworn to love. It happens
Yes, it definitely does happen. Money and power can do very bad things to people. Just look at the actions of George, Duke of Clarence as well.
Too true.
The woods are filled with people who achieve sudden fame and success who have to cut off family and friends.
Richard really must have detested EW. And I can believe it because he married Warwick's daughter and I'm sure no love was lost because her father ruined himself because he was mad Edward married EW.
And he probably told himself he and his line had better claim to the throne via the Bloodlines from his father and his wife's
Add in any old deeply buried resentments of Edward who was tall, a physical marvel, gregarious and a natural leader who married a smoking hot wife....
What's that saying when the cat is away the mice will play? Well in this case the cat died and the mouse saw a chance to have power, fame and glory in his own right and not just as a shadow of his brother
The Woodvilles couldn't become regents unless they got rid of Richard. He was the Protector of the Realm. That is what the Woodvilles wanted though and were dismayed that Richard was made Protector.
@@elizabethrusson7495 In his last will, Edward IV appointed both Richard and Elizabeth´s brother to become guardians of his sons. Any new King´s guardian could be made Protector.
@@bjetkabathory5185 It was the Council that made Richard Protector.
Thanks for providing links to the War of the Roses playlist, HC. Your investigative skills are on full display in this entry. I'm thinking of ordering a book on The Pilgrimage of Grace, stemming from my interest in Cromwell and of course, Catherine Parr. Great job as always; don't know what I'd do without my weekly HC fix. 🙏🏼
THANK YOU STEPHEN FOR YOU CONTINUING GENEROSITY. Yes, the Pilgrimage of Grace was an interesting (though ultimately gruesome) event in history. I hope you get a good book on it and enjoy it.
@@chrisbanks6659 I loved Wolf Hall! I'm making my way through the last book of the trilogy. I've read there will be a season 2 which I'm excited about even though I know how it has to end. Cromwell was one ruthless operator but more complex than historians have painted him in the past.
I doubt that Edward IV was a bigamist. I think it is just something Richard III came up with to justify his taking the throne without having to face the issue of the princes in the tower.
I strongly suspect that's the case too, though I admit that Edward was known to engage in reckless marriages (well, one reckless marriage, that we know of).
I agree. I think we would have left his carcass in the parking lot where we found it. He was treated like the king he really was not. I'm convinced he slandered his brother and murdered his nephews out of greed and arrogance. But karma got him in the end.
YEAH. And that murdering Uncle is STILL being staunchly defended by the fanatical Richard III. NO IRREFUTABLE PROOF THATRICHARD WAS INNOCENT. NO EXPLANATION FOR RICHARD'S SAVAGELY ILLEGAL MURDER OF LORD HASTINGS, A CLOSE FRIEND OF EDWARD'S, AND THE ONLY ENGLISH LORD WITH GUTS ENOUGH TO DEFEND THE PRINCES. RICHARD RAN A REIGN OF TERROR UNTIL HE EVIDENTLY BECAME
AWARE OF A YORKIST FALLING AWAY AND PULLED A HANDBRAKE TURN IN HIS BEHAVIOR.
Richard had nothing to do with the plight troth revelation. Richard returned to the North immediately after George’s execution and rarely returned to London until Edward’s death. Bishop Stillington had relationships with Edward and George but not with Richard.
@@HistoryCallingOne of the Ricardians found evidence of Edward’s plight troth at the Vatican library. We know Edward was prone to secret relationships. He married Elizabeth when she refused to sleep with him outside of marriage. Eleanor Butler may well have done the same thing. A plight troth was as binding as a wedding in the 15th century.
Thank you for being assertive in clarifying the reliability of the writings of Thomas More.
I only discovered this channel a couple of days ago and I am absolutely hooked. I love history, in particular royal history. These videos are amazing and so informative, and what a great voice for narrating. I love this channel!! ❤😊 xxx
Thank you very much and welcome aboard :-)
I've heard many times about this rumour, but I always thought that it can't be true.
First of all, if lady Eleanor Talbot was indeed married to Edward, I'm pretty sure she would've talked from the moment she heard about her ,,husband's" and Elizabeth Woodville's marriage.
I find it strange that this rumour came out only AFTER Edward's death.
Second, if Richard was so sure about the fact that his brother's marriage was bigamous and all of his children were illegitimate, why would he try so hard to keep his sons away from the throne by imprisoning them and even killing them? (if he was indeed the murderer)
In my opinion Richard was just trying to validate his right to the throne so people would not start a revolt against him.
Wonderful video, keep up on the good work :)
(Btw, speaking of the Princes in the tower, I think a video about Perkin Warbeck would be interesting)
Edward could have had her conveniently and quietly done away with if she had talked, as Eleanor would surely have realized. The fact that she moved in with her sister and brother-in-law (high-ranking nobles) after the episode, rather than continuing to live in a separate household, could suggest concerns for her safety. As it was, she died somewhat suspiciously during a several-weeks window when her surviving family was conveniently called away by the king to attend an overseas royal wedding.
It also appears that Stillington, who probably feared for his own safety, didn't come forward until after Edward's death with this explosive information, so Richard didn't know. Richard was moving forward with all the preparations for young Edward's coronation, including having coins minted, sacred oaths of loyalty taken, and regnal clothing made, until the scandal broke.
Not only would it have been rather odd for Lady Eleanor not to have mentioned to someone that she had happened to marry the King of England (if in fact that had happened), but it would have been odder still if her powerful Talbot family had failed to bring it to public attention.
At some time after Eleanor's husband, Thomas Butler, died, her father-in-law apparently took back one of the properties he had settled on the couple; subsequently Edward IV took both properties. Was this, I wonder, when he met (if he did meet) Eleanor? (If so, it does somewhat resemble the pattern of his meeting with Elizabeth Woodville, also a widow older than himself, and possibly also a supplicant.) But why ever would Eleanor keep her silence about a marriage such as this? If Eleanor had gone to Edward to petition about her estates, the rough similarity to Elizabeth Woodville's encounter with his brother might have suggested to Richard III that Eleanor was a good candidate for previous pre-contract. (I have always wondered why Eleanor was pulled out of the hat, besides being conveniently dead.)
Given the lack of data about Lady Eleanor--so much is conjecture--one is forced to rely on appearances regarding her, and to me they strongly suggest that Richard made use of her to concoct a marriage that never existed.
Yes, you would expect to have heard something about it during her lifetime if she was the Queen of England, but I suppose she might have worried that she wouldn't be believed and wouldn't be able to prove it. Of course Elizabeth managed to be a secret queen, but that was only for a few months, maximum.
@@HistoryCalling If Eleanor found that Edward was not going to be willing to admit to the marriage, it would indeed have been daunting. I suppose that if she had become pregnant, Edward might have acknowledged her (had they actually married).
Money and land covers a lot of things. Eleanor ended up in a convent. Was her father paid off?
@@elizabethrusson7495 Her father was dead, and her 2x great nephew was the Earl of Shrewsbury at the time of Titulus Regius, and Eleanor herself had been dead for 16 years. It's hard to say if any of the earls subsequent to her father received any unusual gifts from Edward, or from Richard. I doubt it would have been necessary at that point.
It was not at all unusual for a widowed lady of high rank to enter a convent, so it's also hard to tell whether this was a voluntary or involuntary action on her part.
@@edithengel2284 You are perfectly correct. What we know is that she went to a convent and died never to be heard from again. Speculating on why she didn't speak up is a moot point. The King was very powerful then and there were forces that weren't too happy with all these secret marriages. The fact Edward tried it again with Elizabeth Woodville says that he was entirely capable of a secret marriage before.
I really don’t think the king would have risked his throne for a toss in the hay. You really bring home how desperately Richard III wanted to be king and how conspiracy theories were prevalent long before social media came into play. Excellent video. I love the medieval art you show too. It really sets the mood. Cheers! ❤✌️
Thank you. I love the old artwork too. One of my favourite Disney movies is Sleeping Beauty in fact, in part because I love the whole aesthetic of it. It just looks like an old illuminated manuscript. Also Maleficent scared the pants off me as a child :-)
Did Richard really want to become king, though, or did he just assume that if the Woodvilles took complete power via control of young Edward V that they would have him imprisoned/ executed at the first possible opportunity?
@@HistoryCalling I have children’s books for the same reason. They have beautiful illustrations.
You have no call to characterize a marriage and children as "a toss in the hay."
Edward was a rebellious 18 or 19 year old. He was fed up with Warwick telling him what to do. He fell hard for Elisabeth Woodville and secretly married her to get her into bed. This had worked before but this time Warwick found out and was furious. We don't know how Warwick found out but he did and no doubt made Edward stick to his marriage.
History calling I think you’re a great history RUclipsr! Keep up with the great work
Thank you very much. I'll try my best :-)
Amazing and informative content, engaging despite (and because of) your exhaustive research.
THANK YOU SO MUCH @ankitbhattacharjee3077 for your very kind donation to the channel. I'm so glad you enjoyed the video and appreciated the research that went into it, as not everyone does.
Richard III: The relative you'd never, ever, EVER invite to the family's holiday dinner, summer barbeque, etc. He'd be off in a corner, taking notes on everyone, scheming on how to eliminate the ones in his way.
Here is a thing that I did not realize until quite recently: Eleanor Talbot Butler's niece Anne de Mowbray, Countess of Norfolk, the daughter of Eleanor's elder sister Elizabeth and the Duke of Norfolk, was married at about age 5 to Richard, Duke of York, Edward's son and future prince in the Tower (age 4). The marriage took place in January 1477/8 in London. Anne had inherited the huge wealth of the de Mowbrays, but the little girl died at age 8 in 1481.
Eleanor Butler was dead by the date of the marriage, but it is hard to imagine Edward's thoughts about this connection, if he had indeed married her. I don't know who little Anne's guardian was at the time the marriage was arranged, but the connections of Edward with Eleanor's family are interesting. (Elizabeth married Norfolk when Eleanor was only 12, so I don't know how well they actually knew each other or whether they maintained whatever connection they had had as young people.)
Later thoughts: Edward IV had an illegitimate son named Arthur Plantagenet by Elizabeth Waite, who may be the same person as the Elizabeth Lucy Edward was supposed to have married prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. (Arthur was a courtier attending his half-sister, Queen Elizabeth of York, subsequently his brother in law Henry VII, and then his nephew Henry VIII. He was Constable of Calais, among other positions.) One reason Henry VII may have tried to destroy all mentions of Edward's alleged precontracts to other ladies was not only to protect his wife's legitimacy, but possibly also to defend against the idea that Arthur Plantagenet, if he was Elizabeth Lucy's son, and the result of his parents' possibl legal marriage was a better heir than himself or even his wife.
Arthur's first wife was Elizabeth Grey, 6th Baroness Lisle, who was married to Edmund Dudley as her first husband. By that marriage, she was the mother of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, the Protector of Edward VI, and grandmother of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, Elizabeth I's favorite. Arthur's daughters would have been half-sisters of the powerful Northumberland, and aunts of the famous Earl of Leicester, as well as close relatives of the Tudors. Elizabeth Grey was, like little Anne Mowbray, also a niece of Eleanor Talbot Butler's: Cousins who married half-brothers.
These two children both lived such tragic lives. Ann Mowbray died in childhood, and young Richard was one of the Princes in the Tower.
in my opinion, Richard III wanted the throne to himself and did whatever was necessary to taint his own bloodline and made his own family members illegitimate just to get on the throne, then he should have seen himself as illegitimate and should never have reigned as sovereign, he got power hungry but thank you very much for another amazing video and I also saw an article that King Charles III is in support of having the remains of the "Princes in the tower" examined, rather excited for that to happen as with the technology that is available now we can find out a lot, regards Elisabeth
I've heard people say before that King Charles is open to examining the supposed bones of the Princes in the Tower. I've never seen that story confirmed, but like yourself I would love it to be true.
If they are the princes they and Richard III should share a similar Y Chromosome.
I would think if Edward had been a bigamist then Kingmaker Warrick would have used that against him day one as a way pressure him to give up Elizabeth and/or to elevate George as a reasonable stable ruler.
He knew his daughter outranked EW in terms of their fathers, so why did he not use that against Edward IV when he openly rebelled against him?
But he didn't. He only used the witchcraft accusation to try and rule E&E"s marriage void.
Excellent point. If Warwick and George had known about it, I think they would have mentioned it when they deposed Edward in 1470-1 (or at any other number of times).
@@HistoryCalling I think the "secret" that made Warwick and George feel so entitled is that they knew that Edward IV was illegitimate. When Edward was born, the possibility of inheriting the throne was such a longshot that nobody made a fuss about it. Under ordinary circumstances, the Duke of York would have become king and would have arranged his children's marriage.
@@anthonytroisi6682 There is no evidence that Edward was illegitimate; most of the accusations are circumstantial. Furthermore, since a child born to a married couple was legally considered the child of the husband, and since Edward's father accepted him as his son, he was by law legitimate, no matter what Warwick and George might have thought.
That’s my great aunt Liz you’re talking about! 😂.
Love your videos 😊
The path to the crown seems to be as tangled and twisted as a briar patch. Nonetheless, I do admire your ability to sort through the thorns. Another very interesting video. Thumbs up. 👍
Thank you and that's a great analogy. It was indeed tough to get to the crown and tough to hang onto it too.
Very interesting, logical dissection of this historical issue. This has always been a fascinating period in history for me. Thank you for an excellent presentation. Kind Regards, Cherie Foley
Elizabeth Woodville's father may have been a relatively lowly knight but her mother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, was the second wife of John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford. Son of Henry IV & brother to Henry V. Richard Woodville worked for Bedford, as his father had, and there were many raised eyebrows when he wed a woman so far above him. Much like when Catherine of Valois, widow of Henry V, married Edmund Tudor. Both Jacquetta's marriage to Woodville and Valois' marriage to Tudor were carried out in secret, without the legal step of seeking permission from the Royal Council governing for the infant King Henry VI. A similar situation to when Dowager Queen Catherine Parr married Thomas Seymour in 1547.
Catherine married Owen Tudor, not Edmund, he was their first born son and therefore half brother to the King. And Margaret Beaufort, Edmund Tudor's child bride, was the result of another unequal match: John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford.
One was the son of the King/father to the man who would be King, the other was the daughter of a knight, mistress who eventually became wife. So the Tudor dynasty would never have existed if it weren't for these very scandalous and unequal marriages.
M
@@benjamintillema3572 Good catch.
Wow! This is like a 15th.C. version of 'Hello' magazine.
Listening to your new video on my way home from work every Friday helps me destress from the week.
I'm glad to hear it. Have a lovely (stress-free) weekend :-)
Best shade thrown among all the history channels. Honestly, when you get annoyed or angry about something, I thoroughly enjoy listening to your elegant sass.
The very best account of all this is in Josephine Tey’s book: “THE DAUGHTER OF TIME.” The in-depth research is breathtaking.
Breathtakingly out of date.
Thanks!
THANK YOU KRISTINE for your kind donation to the channel. I hope you enjoyed hearing about the bigamy rumours :-)
Good evening to history calling from Bea😊
Hi Bea. Welcome back :-)
I'm a huge fan of Philippa G.'s novels from this period. I consider them well written FICTION, but credit them with making me interested in the historical facts. This is a great example. I did not think Edward IV was a biggimist, but other than thinking it unlikely he could get away with it, I had no facts. I think the timing of it seals it for me.
I just watched “The Lost King” this evening which is all about Phillipa Langley figuring out where Richard III was buried which was underneath a car park in Leicester, England. She and her fellow Ricardians (people who think that Shakespeare gave Richard III a bad reputation and that he was actually a good king who couldn’t have possibly had his 2 nephews, one who was Edward IV’s son the uncrowned king Edward V along with his little brother Richard) killed in the Tower of London. I love Shakespeare’s Richard III and was curious as to what sources he used to base his play on. Sir Thomas More was a great source because he’d written a history of Richard III not terribly long after the Battle of Bosworth and the controversy over his taking the crown for himself although he’d sworn to Edward IV before his untimely death that he would guide and help his nephew to reign well. More was known as a scrupulously honest man. Other early biographers also noted that Richards’s actions were not that of an honest, upright man because he’d publicly shamed his mother by accusing her of adultery resulting in Edward’s birth. Even though Henry VII took the throne after Richard was killed at Bosworth Field he wasn’t particularly liked and respected by his people. Why would people who had nothing to gain say that Richard had usurped the throne from his nephew? Of the many histories of the York family and of Richard III that I have read none have ever convinced me that Edward IV was a bigamist and that his children were illegitimate. Richard might not have been the hunchbacked cripple with a withered arm as Shakespeare portrays him, but he was no saintly, virtuous king either.
🥴 I take back my views about Sir Thomas More. My bad.
Not at all. I think he was in many ways a very good and honest person who certainly didn't deserve his fate. Admittedly I don't think he was a good historian, but that doesn't necessarily make him dishonest. He may well have believed what he wrote, even though there are a lot of clear factual errors in it. Regarding the movie, I watched it in the cinema and found it very strange. The real Philippa Langley can be a bit melodramatic regarding the remains of Richard III, however she's not crazy. Despite that she signed off on a movie that depicted her as someone who had full-blown hallucinations about talking to Richard IIII (or rather an actor who her character had seen portraying him). I also found it a bit insulting to her that the character based on her had to be given an ex-husband and a couple of cute kids to make her 'relatable' never mind the weirdest case of ME I've ever seen which just disappeared anytime she needed to run somewhere, but was there when she needed to compare herself to Richard and his scoliosis. That part had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer by the way.
@monicacall7532, Thomas More was 5 at the time of Bosworth, so there's no way he could have written a history of Richard III "not terribly long" after the battle! 😁
Thank you for this discussion. Your scholarship and presentation are well presented.
And thank you for watching and commenting :-) I hope you'll come back for the next video too.
Of course, the 'Princes in the Tower' is a misnomer. For young Edward was already King of England at the time of the boy’s imprisonment. But I understand 'Princes in the Tower' has a nicer ring to it, than the 'King and the Prince in the Tower', so it’s no wonder that the misnomer stuck.😁
Yes, you're spot on. I discuss that in my video on the two boys, however as you say the fact that it has a nice ring has made it very famous and for a general audience it's a quicker way to get across to them who I'm talking about. It's not even a contemporary name though.
King and the Duke, even more awkward (and makes them sound much older than they were, to boot).
history videos comfort me so much
I just realized that you have subtitles! I can't hear around here so thank you! :-)
You're very welcome. They're my script as well, not auto-generated, so barring the odd typo they should match my words perfectly.
I have put way too much thought into this. I believe the bigamy story was true, and I would not be shocked if Eleanor Butler was not the only one Edward married. She was just the one that Richard had proof of. In the case of Elizabeth Woodville, her mother, specifically, would have gone running to Margaret of Anjou with the tale. Edward was probably in love with Elizabeth so he just decided to stay married to her. Richard probably didn't think they had proof, if he knew at all about the previous marriage(s) but someone gave it to him after Edward died. I would guess Duchess Cecily knew it was true and stewed about it. However, I do not believe that Edward was illegitimate and I don't believe that she claimed he was. There's nothing in her biography that makes me think that she would do that, even if she did hate Elizabeth Woodville. Here's my speculation: I do think she would loudly hint about some illegitimacy and people assume she was talking about her son and not her grandsons. Combine that with the rumors her son George started before he died about Edward, and the story got twisted. So, yes, I think Edward entered into marriages to get women in bed and therefor the story was true. But I have no idea if it was Stillington or anyone else who told the truth. I also agree that Richard's affection for his wife (who probably despised the Woodville family) make him have far more care for George's children, and if he had lived without his own heir, he may have made restored little Warwick to the sucession.
Stranger things have certainly happened. Whatever way we cut it though, having his nephews killed (which I think he did) was unforgivable and all it bought him was two years on the throne. I see Richard's actions as having led to the downfall of the House of Plantagenet and the rise of the Tudors.
@@HistoryCalling Fair enough. We'll civilly disagree on death of the princes, though. I doubt Richard did because without proof of their deaths, it did little good. I'm not naive that he would have probably eventually done have put the boys to death, as Henry VII did with poor, unfortunate Warwick.
But Edward IV? A Medieval Frat Boy if there ever was one.
Thanks for all the great content.
@@sdl1ishappy Richard most certainly had his nephews destroyed. He had the most motivation and the most access with which to have it done. He was their protector who had them locked away. No one but his people and their staff had access to the boys
If he had no ill intentions towards them, why did he never investigate their disappearance, especially as seeing he would be the first one blamed? If he fully intended to see Edward on the throne the first thing he would have done would have everyone in charge of Edward and his brother in the Tower rounded up and questioned.
There's not even an announcement of the boys being dead..they just disappear at the same time as Richard is telling or rather, having it told to anyone who will listen, that Edward was a bigamist and his children bastards and oh look that makes me king now. Nobody even needed to comment on the disappearance because there really was no one to stop Richard and the boys being assumed dead was a fait accomli.
As far as Margaret Beaufort, because these type arguments always go there, she had no motivation to destroy those boys. That's a hard sell to murder the children of your future would be ally on the off chance they would agree to support your exiled son with a tenuous at best claim to the throne.
Second, Richard had a living son at the time he stole the crown, so practically speaking, destroying those boys only helps Richard and his heir. She had no motivation to do it.
The Tudor Woodville alliance came about because hell...we know Elizabeth W's motivation. And for MB, the only way she could ever fully ensure her sons safety is if he became king. Plus as the years went on and those boys were never seen again , it eroded support for Richard(especially after his son died ) which bolstered Tudor support.
So yes, Richard had those boys done in quite obviously so.
@sdl1ishappy Feeling the need to underline the above sentence "If he had no ill intentions towards them, why did he never investigate their disappearance". Whether or not Richard ordered the deaths of the boys, or he killed them himself, or even yet suppose they died of sickness; whatever the case be, they were never seen again. Two children, his brother's sons were put into his custody and were never heard from or seen again. it doesn't matter if he didn't order their deaths himself (I believe he did) they were gone, so yes, I absolutely hold him responsible for their disappearance.
Complete nonsense, there is no actual evidence that he married anyone but Elizabeth, let alone several women. And Richard certainly had the princes in the tower killed.
Fantastic again, thank you. Very interesting.
It's very likely Edwatd IV fooled around, but I doubt he was a bigamist. This accusation sounds like propaganda to me.
Same here and very conveniently timed propaganda too.
You explain all this very well.
The question I would have raised is; If the marriage of Edward IV and Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate, and therefore any children illegitimate, why kill the boys? (Princes in the tower) Indeed why even imprison the boys in the first place?
They'd always have been a threat to the throne as so many would have believed them legitimate. Someone else asked the same question and I gave a more detailed answer there if you want to have a quick look for it.
Danke!
Vielen Dank für Ihre Großzügigkeit. Ich freue mich, dass dir das Video gefallen hat. :-)
Ivve always wondered why Elizabeth didn't raise a stink about Richard kidnapping and killing her sons and declaring them illegitimate after she got out of Sanctuary. Does anyone know?? I just cant comprehend a mother being quiet about any of that
I think the most likely explanation is fear about what would happen to her daughters and herself. She started plotting to dethrone Richard almost right away though, with Lady Margaret Beaufort. I think that says it all about her feelings about him.
I know it's television fiction, but does the White Queen pretty much tell the truth? I realize there's a lot of filler, but it does seem to get the key points across.
Apart from the idea that Elizabeth Woodville and her mother were witches and that Richard of Shrewsbury survived, yes, most of it is actually quite accurate from what I remember.
@@princessoffire1107 It's depiction of Margret Beaufort is very controversial. It portrays her as a Machiavelli figure, which is unsupported by any contemporary evidence and the idea that she was behind the boys deaths is entirely the fictionalizing of Philippa Gregory, relying on the streching of sources and imagination. Nobody at the time considered her a suspect or powerful enough to do such a thing and Henry VII seemed to have no idea if they lived or not.
It was also Elizabeth Woodville who reached out to Margret and offered Henry the throne, so she seemed to think they were already dead and Margret (quite naturally) didn't imagine her son taking a throne he was explicitly not an heir to (Henry IV barred all his half siblings and their descendants). The show wrongly portrays this with Margret talking about how obvious it was that her son was a Lancastrian heir and nobody contradicting her. In actuality he was widely considered part of an embarrassing non royal part of the family, which is why Edward was open to letting him live. In reality Jasper Tudor had been leading raids in Wales in order to undermine the Yorkist government and it was the Tudor loyalty to their half brother Henry VI which placed Jasper in danger and Henry by association. Henry had no claim to the throne, which is why so little was made of him in his young life, he was chosen by Elizabeth because he was the right age for her daughter and could potentially lead an army due to his Lancastrian connections (he was also second cousin to the King of France, who gave him support).
When she had to release her daughters to his custody, she did demand that he swear a public oath promising the girls' safety, specifically swearing that he wouldn't put them in the Tower. That might have been the most obvious and public statement on it that she felt she could make under the circumstances. It was mentioned in one of HC's videos (possibly the one on Elizabeth Woodville's?).
Great job! Thank you
I have never taken these accusations serious especially, like you said, because of timing... but still, you hear so many details about it while still having no concrete informations at all that I perfectly understand why it fascinates people so much to imagine Edward IV being bigamous... and why fiction usually takes this version of history...
Yes, the timing was indeed VERY convenient for Richard. Where were these rumours in 1470-1 when Edward had been deposed? You're right though that rumours like this do so well because they're theoretically possible and yet there's no real evidence one way or another. It's what made a smear campaign useful in the 15th century and still makes it useful today.
Excellent content. Thank you.
Richard has many supporters to this day but to me besides all his maneuvering and attempts to rewrite his family history the burning question is what happened to the prince's and why was he never held to account for their disappearance.
Thanks
THANK YOU EVANSLUCY for your generous donation to the channel. I hope you enjoyed the video and are having a lovely weekend, wherever you are in the world.
@@HistoryCalling thank you. I like your documentaries
It was bs smear against the sister in law he hated. He used this to get the throne and humiliate Elizabeth
It has always seemed like politics to me that Edwards marriage was deemed invalid after his death. Of course Richard wanted the throne for himself. He also likely wanted to harm Elizabeth Woodville as she was so hated.
Yes, I think is a case of a desire for power corrupting the Duke of Gloucester too.
Richard was possibly concerned that the Princes, had loyalty to their mother and her family.
We'll likely never know the truth for certain, but with what's available, I think the bigamy claims were just a ploy to legitimize Richard III. The thing that sticks out to me the most Is actually the supposed "real wife". If the royal family and court were upset that Edward IV had married a lower-noble Englishwoman instead of a foreign princess, why would his "real" bride also be a lower-noble Irishwoman? (If I have my history right, England had control of much of Ireland then, so it shouldn't have made much difference between her and Woodville.)
Yes, you're right that we're never going to be able to prove this either way, though I suppose that's part of the fun of debating it :-) Regarding Ireland, without boring you with too much detail, England had control of an area called the Pale around Dublin, but much of the Ireland was still under the rule of Irish lords.
I don’t doubt Edward IV could have technically been “married” before, not what we would considered legal today but 100% binding at the time. But, if Elizabeth had a coronation and was anointed with holy oil, she was no fake queen. Her children being legitimate is a legal question for the time. Seems like even if they were not children of the king and in line for the throne, they would still technically be princes and princesses, but that’s too messy to even think about.
It's a possibility that Edward 1V was a bigimist but we will never know for certain. Thank you HC as always. 😊👍
Yes, I agree. While I think it's unlikely, we can't rule it out and his marriage to Elizabeth certainly shows that he could be reckless.
I love the medieval art you show too
Thank you. I know their pictures weren't always very lifelike or accurate, but they sure were pretty :-)
Hey 200 thousand subscribers. Interesting story.
And don't forget that Thomas More was a protege of Bishop Morton who openly detested Richard III while he was still Duke of York. So we really don't know how much More wrote and how much he was just parenting Morton. And it's interesting that war was doing research on the subject of the princes in the tower but he suddenly stopped writing his history. It was incomplete. And this was way before his death. Of course there's inaccuracies in his version of the alleged death of the princes. Some really glaring ones. So I agree with you that as a source he is definitely not to be relied on. He reminds me of the movies that are "kbased on a historical story."
I always have such a hard time when it comes to Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV’s love story. I just can’t stop applying modern thinking to their marriage. Edward had affairs and to me cheating on your spouse does not mean you love them. It’s hard for me to reconcile that.
I know what you mean. I've never been able to understand how a society which prided itself on being so much more religious than in modern times, nevertheless had so much in the way of adultery, murder and the mistreatment of groups like women, children and the poor. It's hard to see their Christian values sometimes.
@@HistoryCallingit was thought that a powerful man could afford more women. It was generally accepted that a king would have Mistresses. They were just for fun. A lot of them still otherwise it's certainly would want a legitimate wife and legitimate Offspring to follow him to the throne so
@@HistoryCalling "It's good to be the king."
Oh yes, they wanted to have their cake and eat it, meaning wives and legitimate children on one hand and mistresses and a reputation for Godliness on the other. I just think (and I'm sure lots of others at the time did too) that you're kidding yourself if you think you can have all of those things. According to their own religious beliefs, they were condemning themselves to hell the way a lot of them carried on. I'm just surprised this doesn't seem to have concerned more of them.
It is indeed. Less so to be the Queen consort though. :-0
The titulus regius is about the worst thing to happen at that time. It literally tore the family apart.
I know. The Plantagenets really did tear themselves to pieces. If they'd had more family loyalty they'd have been able to hang onto the throne. They were so strong that no one but themselves could ruin them. It's like a Greek tragedy.
I smell something rotting as Richard only brings up the bigamy after his brother and the supposed wife were dead and can’t confirm or deny the accusation and it seems that no one else was supporting the accusation beyond the clergy.
I'm coming a bit late to this party, but here are my thoughts.
It seems to me that there are parallels in how Edward is alleged to have treated Eleanor Talbot and how we know he treated Elizabeth Woodville. Edward was a womaniser. Its not impossible that he went through a secret marriage to Eleanor to get her into his bed, then pulled the same trick with Elizabeth. The difference was that Elizabeth became pregnant, so he decided to recognise the marriage as he needed an heir. It probably counted in his calculations that Elizabeth was the daughter of Jacquetta who as the widow of Royal Duke was a women of standing. Eleanor had no important relatives to fight her corner.
Of course we will never know the truth, but the idea that Edward preyed on widows of gentle birth and promised marriage to get them into his bed is not impossible.
My 15th great-aunt! Love these videos
How convenient none of this came out until after Edward and Eleanor Butler were dead. 🙄
My thoughts exactly. It didn't even come up when Edward was deposed in 1470-1.
Historians now: don't say a word unless you can properly cite it and defend it. Historians then: "a cow told me in a dream that the prince had an affair with a nun. So i'm gonna write that down as fact. Maybe draw him fighting a snail for the hell of it."
Regardless of what side of the coin you are on, there is a fact that some do miss. Eleanor Butler died in 1468 before either of the princes were born, Edward was born 2 years later in 1470 and Richard in 1473.If Edward had married her, only Elizabeth of York born in 1466 while Eleanor was still alive would be truly illegitimate.
He must have felt that (if he actually married Eleanor), it would only call attention to the irregularity to marry Elizabeth after Eleanor died.
While I see your point, I don’t believe that’s how it works. Let’s pretend that Eleanor was indeed his wife. Her death does not automatically make his second wife, a real wife. The laws against bigotry don’t recognize more than the first legitimate wife. He would have had to marry Elizabeth AFTER Eleanor’s death, for any of their children to be legitimate
@@Roguestatus33 Even if Edward was a widower from the first (alleged) marriage when the princes were born, since he had not yet remarried their mother before their birth, they would still be illegitimate.The children would remain illegitimate unless legitimized by the Pope and/or Parliament, as the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt were.
Fun Fact: Empress Elizabeth of Russia (much like Mary I) was engaged to the heir of french but because she married out of wedlock and her mother wasn't the right birth, the marriage was cut off.
Yup, a royal marriage treaty sometimes wasn't worth much more than the paper it was written on.
How do you marry out of wedlock. Doesn’t a marriage create wedlock ?
@@lhzook I meant to say she was Born out of wedlock.
Fascinating insights. ❤❤❤
It was a particularly dangerous time to be close to the throne and Richard does seem to be the most likely culprit of the deaths of his nephews. I find him an enigma personally. As for Edward IV, it seems a really dimwitted move to put the future legitimacy of your children and their claim to the throne at risk. He doesn't strike me as that dumb.
Yes, Richard is interesting, isn't he? He seems to have been genuinely devoted to Edward in his lifetime and yet I have next to no doubt that he killed his brother's sons within about 3 months of Edward's death. It's sociopathic.
I don't think he married Eleanor, but the man did not always behave in a responsible fashion.
Maybe it’s too modern a point of view, but it’s my opinion that if you’re seen to be married, you have a wedding ceremony, you then live the rest of your life as a married couple, that means you’re married. Prior betrothals be dammed.
If a betrothal was all that was necessary to make a marriage, then a betrothal agreement could never be broken before the wedding and there’d be no reason for anyone to have the actual wedding, would there?
Nonetheless, ecclesiastical rules of the day were different. And Stillington was not claiming a previous betrothal, but a marriage ceremony.
Speaking of Thomas Moore, how would your list of ‘Tudor Thomas’s” go? (this includes Moore, Cromwel, Cranmer, Wolsey, Seymour and Culpepper or however you write his name lol)
Hmm, interesting question. I maybe don't know enough about all of them to give a watertight answer, but my initial response, from best to worst is: More, Wolsey, Cranmer, Cromwell, Seymour, Culpepper.
@@HistoryCalling Good answer!! I mostly agree, though I would swap Cromwell and Cranmer- Cromwell was bad, but Cranmer was worse in my opinion-
I dont believe that Edward was illegitimate. Richard III and his mother hated Elizabeth and her family. IMO Richard stole the throne with the encouragement of his mother. Also, Jaquetta was royal and married to the uncle of Henry VI. The rumours were probably started because previously the family had been Lancastrians
Cecily Neville's actions and motives are fascinating to speculate on. Edward V was her grandson after all. It's pretty awful to think she countenanced having him ousted from the throne, even if it was for one of her sons and even if she disliked his mother.
@@HistoryCalling that's what's so baffling about the whole thing. Remember that Margaret of Anjou had her husband and son executed. I think that may be where we get the idea
Hmm, I don't think Margaret had Cecily's son Edmund and her husband executed. She wasn't even at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460 and they died during or directly after that Battle.
The Duke of Clarence floated the Eleanor Butler rumor when he was trying to usurp Edward IV’s throne, which was a factor in him being executed as a traitor., but Richard supported Edward against Clarence and Warwick, so this was a VERY convenient 180 on Richard’s part. Considering the way Richard was executing people who stood against him it’s understandable why nobody would question this.
As far as Edward IV being illegitimate the reasons for this rumor are absurd and not at all based in fact. They base this on the idea that Edward would have been born at 38 weeks for Richard of York to be the father but he was not unhealthy. The fact that he was tall is also silly. My sister is 5’3” and her husband is 5’9” and their son is 6’2” so this is far from evidence of paternity. Cecily was a pious, proud noblewoman who believed her husband was the rightful king and would be crowned, and she would risk that by booking up with a lowly archer within a week of him leaving to fight a war. They also want on to have 12 children in total so clearly they had a fruitful marriage.
However, even if this was true it doesn’t excuse Richard murdering children, and if his claim was SO waterproof than why did the princes have to die? BTW… Richard IS behind their murders he has the strongest motive, they were locked in the most secure building at the time and there is NO WAY Richard would have allowed ANYONE he didn’t trust completely to get anywhere near those boys. He knew his nephews favored the Rivers family to him and he might have lost EVERYTHING if Edward V had been king; it was too big a risk for him to take. I think Elizabeth Woodville was a true queen but her insatiable ambition probably got her sons killed. If Richard felt secure of being regent until Edward reached legal age and then continue to be a counselor to the king none of this may have happened.
Richard the 3rd used sophistry...the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving:
I bet I'm not the only one here who is now clamoring for a History Calling vs.Thomas More cage match.(My money's on HC!). Having recently re-watched the Zinnemann film, I would love to see entries on More's scholarship as well as his life and death.
Oh no you do NOT call my great grandmother “fake”! 😂 I think if Eleanor Butler had married Edward and wanted to be his wife, she would’ve thrown down her claim pretty fast. It was completely a ruse to delegitimize the children so Richard III could steal the throne.
If he was suppose to mary Buttler and any other marriage would be not a real marriage then why did warrick try to Marry him to bona of France? If waarover didnt care about previous arrangements then why is it now a problem? Why did They accept Elizabeth as queen when they were not really married?
You are so smart
Bishop Stillington was close to George, Duke of Clarence, and George was executed by Edward IV for spreading rumors about him. Richard strongly opposed the execution. After Edward’s death Richard obviously was making arrangements for young Edward’s coronation. Richard was not at the meeting where Stillington, whom Richard barely knew, made the announcement that he had plight trothed Eleanor Butler and Edward before his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. From the account of the meeting it seems evident that Stillington had a document recording the plight troth. According to canon law, this plight troth was valid and it meant the children of Edward and Elizabeth were illegitimate. The boys were not imprisoned in the Tower. It was where kings awaited coronation. After Richard was given the throne, the boys were seen frequently playing in the gardens. Then, shortly after the Buckingham rebellion, they vanished from sight. There was as no reason for Richard to have them killed. If he had, he would have presented their bodies to the country, claimed they had died from one of the diseases endemic to children, and buried them with honor. Richard was not a stupid man. The children disappeared. They could have been sent to the castle at Middleham, where the rest of the royal children lived. There was a persistent story in the Tyrell family that the boys lived for a time at their home with their mother. They could also hav been sent to Burgundy to Richard’s sister, Margaret whose account rolls contain a record of money spent to raise Yorkist heirs. We know what happened to the Yorkists who survived Richard. They were executed by Henry VII and Henry VIII. Edward probably died. He was under the care of a doctor for an abscess in his mouth. I have always wondered if Richard became Perkin Warbeck. He was accepted by the nobility of Europe, Scotland, and Ireland. His portraits bear an uncanny resemblance to Edward IV. Elizabeth Woodville left sanctuary, brought her daughters to court, asked her son from her first marriage to return to England and cast his lot with Richard, accepted land and a generous stipend from Rchad and seemed to live happily enough untilmHenry VII stripped her of land and stipend and had her imprisoned in a convent for the rest of her life. It is hard to believe she would entrust her other children to Richard if she thought he had murdered her young sons.
The bigamy claim can be described politely as dubious and accurately as an outright fabrication.
Yes, I suspect you're right.
I have always thought why would Warwick be searching abroad for a suitable match for Edward if he was already promised or indeed married already? Why was Warwick so furious when Edward married Elizabeth? Could it because his plans were thwarted and because Elizabeth’s first husband was on the Lancastrian side at his death? It appears to me that Elizabeth made herself unpopular by pushing her family members into royal circles which would have started or at least contributed to any vendetta against her. Also if Eleanor Talbot was married to Edward why did she not make a fuss as she was still alive for four years after the Woodville marriage?
Whilst I am a descendant of Elizabeth I am also of Richard Duke of York’s and Warwick’s lines too so can see objectively.
History calling I have a question now you know when Cathrine of Aragon was still alive in 1533 when Elizabeth the 1 was born and you know how people still had the backing of Mary the 1 Cathrine of Aragon daughter and her then do you think if Henry the 8 gave Anne Boleyn the annulment sent her away could she have been a threat and people questioning the legitimacy of Edward the 6 when he is born or when he comes king of England because obviously Cathrine Howard would be no threat because she had no kids with Henry the 8 but if Anne Boleyn got her annulment could their still been some kind of talk on which child was legitimate and which child is not like when Cathrine of Aragon was still alive when Henry the 8 and Anne Boleyn got married and had their daughter 🤔
Yes, I think had Anne still been alive when Edward was born, his legitimacy would have been seriously in question, annulment or not.
Brilliant! Thankyou for covering this! I've always thought it was most likely just Ricardian propaganda, since it magically appeared at such a convenient time, after seemingly never being mentioned before- which is ridiculous, as you say- & since there's no actual evidence of it, but this excellent examination of the sources makes me quite happy to dismiss it entirely. I didn't know the story of a Bishop Stillington helpfully telling Richard about it might not be what actually happened though, that's interesting.
I'd love to see a video on Thomas More being a "horrible historian".
The other thing a lot people who argue the children were illegitimate forget is that it wasn’t true. The marriage with Elizabeth Woodville had been accepted as legitimate for nearly 20 year. To have the marriage annulled would have required a court declaration of annulment. That would have required the evidence being looked at. Richard at no time brought the case to a canon court to look at.
Therefore, the marriage remained on foot and the boys and thus Edward V the true king. Arguably that changed with the passage of Titulus Regis, with gave the crown to Richard. However, what one Parliament gave, another could take away and as other Parliament could repeal the Titulus Regis, which Henry VII. Edward V and his brother were always a threat.
The marriage with Elizabeth would not need annulment if it had been bigamous. In that case there would be no marriage to annul. But you are correct that the issue of possible bigamy was an ecclesiastical issue, and neither king nor Parliament had any rights to make a judgment on it. Richard had no right to adjudge the children illegitimate.
@@edithengel2284 Ummm- yes it would. Henry VIII said his marriage was invalid, but he still had to get a church court to say so. He couldn’t remarry without his first marriage being annulled.
That was the entire point of the King’s Great Matter.
In fact I think the fact he married Anne Boleyn before the decree is what his marriage to Anne a little dicey.
@@brontewcat I think we might be talking past each other. Just to clarify: which marriage are you referring to when you say "to have the marriage annulled would have required a court declaration of annulment"? Presuming Edward had actually married Eleanor, as long as she was alive, their marriage would have had to be annulled to enable him legally to marry Elizabeth. (Obviously, if Eleanor were dead, and Edward wished to regularize his marriage with Elizabeth, he could go ahead and just remarry her. The children would still be illegitimate, however, though they could have been legitimated by the Pope and/or Parliament, as John of Gaunt's Beaufort children were.)
I was speaking about Elizabeth and Edward's marriage, which is the one referred to just be fore the sentence I quoted, and which I assumed you meant. But I'm guessing you meant Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
Yes, if an annulment was necessary, to marry Anne before Henry got it was a little dicey. It made a nonsense of everything he did to poor Katherine.
@@edithengel2284 No I meant Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage.
Even today void marriages need a declaration of nullity. Once a couple go through a ceremony of marriage, the marriage must be either dissolved through divorce or formally declared void.
I am pretty sure there is a presumption a marriage is legal until it is declared not to be.
I will check this however.
@@edithengel2284 I checked, and I was wrong about the presumption.
So what I checked was the position of marriages under the common law,
At common law there is a distinction between void and voidable marriages. Void marriages are void ab initio - that is from the start. It was understood to void by the parties. It did not need a declaration. It is also a common law concept, not a concept at canon law.
A voidable marriage was a concept derived from canon law. That is a marriage that was regarded as valid by at least one of the parties. From the Court’s point of view the marriage was valid until a court declared it not be.
As Elizabeth Woodville and the public regarded her marriage as valid, it would be a voidable marriage and regarded at common and canon law as valid until it was declared not to be.
Curious. Lady Eleanor Butler was being dispossed of property by her father-in-law when Edward intervened. So he was involved with her. A pre-contract? The Talbots were Lancastrians. Her father John Talbot presented Margaret of Anjou a Book of Hours. Sadly another Talbot was slain at Northampton and her relative Sir Gilbert Talbot led a wing of Henry VII's cavalry at Bosworth. If the circumstances were right Edward could be magnimous to his enemies, echoes of the Woodville connection. Edward seemed headstrong and let his best supporter, Richard Neville, down when on an embassy to secure the hand of Bonne of Savoy.
To an ally who had fought for him to be treated so must have been exasperating. Warwick was the prime-mover at First St. Albans when the Yorks has few nobles.
Do you mean Elizabeth Woodville was in a property dispute at the time Edward seems to have met her?
Yes, I agree Edward was short-sighted to treat Warwick in the way that he did, but then Warwick was perhaps short-sighted too to demand so much and then turn on his King like a spoilt toddler having a tantrum when he didn't get everything he wanted. You can argue it both ways.
@@HistoryCalling Eleanor's father-in-law, took back one of the two properties he had settled on her and her husband, probably unlawfully. (Edward took them both. If he had married Eleanor, it's a bit hard to explain that.)
Interesting and intriguing. Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it :-)
Great video, very interesting. I have a history/poli sci background and the Middle Ages are fascinating.
Thank you and they are indeed. No wonder George RR Martin used them as the basis for Games of Thrones. So much intrigue! :-)
Why wouldn't Eleanor or Stillington out the king? That seems obvious. Either of them would be risking their lives, for very little if any gain. Edward had clearly moved on and wouldn't have returned to Eleanor or made her queen. Medieval kings often permanently silenced those who threatened their power, stability, or desires, and Edward was no exception; he had his own brother (George) executed (amongst others). There was no point during Edward's lifetime when the secret could be safely divulged. Moreover neither Eleanor nor Stillington (nor anyone else who may have known about the previous marriage), could have objected during the Wydville "marriage" ceremony when it happened because it was held so secretly.
It wasn't Richard who claimed that Edward had previously been married, it was Bishop Stillington, who claimed to have been a party to the earlier contract..
Richard's Titulus Regis was over egging the pudding a bit. He had to come up with a reasonable and believable explanation as to why his nephew, the Prince of Wales would not be ascending to the throne. Making him illegitimate also has the benefit of stopping any revolt or uprising in his name.
Richard was at least in Edward IVs good books when Warwick was busy negotiating a foreign marriage and no mention of any pre-contract was raised then. This marriage to Eleanor only 'came out' after Edward IVs death. Had this marriage been true, the time to raise it would have been years before when Edward pulled Elizabeth out of his hat like a rabbit. Instead the Lords, including Richard & Warwick just muttered about it, disliking Elizabeth's vast family.
I doubt that Edward IV was a bigamist. I've read that Richard III claimed that Lady Eleanor had actually been contracted to marry Edward before his union with Elizabeth Woodville. In the 15th century, that precontract was enough to make any subsequent marriage unvalid. So Richard III argued that when Edward married Elizabeth, their children that will come were stripped of all their succession rights. Eleanor was a silent witness in that occasion as she was already died in 1468 and so couldn't face interrogation over the state of her relationship with Edward.With both absent from the debate, Richard III had advantage in his argument and also his nephews disappeared from the Tower of London, while their sisters went from being eligible princesses to illegitimate. Great job as always, thanks.
Richard had no right to make any judgment in the matter of Edward's marriage/s at all; marriage law was the province of the Church.
Eleanor might have been persuaded by her family not to mention it. We don't know if they were paid off or if they feared the wrath of the king or the Kings counselors.
If you do a later video, could you delve a little more into clearance. I seem to remember but I do not know how good the source was that he also was claiming that his brother was illegitimate. Of course, it was known that he wanted the throne for himself. So there's an obvious bias there. But I would like to hear those side issues also.
Well his brother certainly thought so !
Elizabeth is my 18th great grandmother. I love her, I think of her life and I feel sorry for her. My lineage comes to her through her first husband, John Grey of Groby and their son Sir Thomas III 1st Marquess of Dorset Grey - it's such a scandalous story.
Something that i really don't know about. Can't wait
It's a really interesting story. If true, it would exonerate Richard III for taking the throne.
It sounds to me that the whole thing was made up. There were a lot of things going around that were made up on both sides to discredit the other, so i would be surprised if this wasn't one of them.
Yes, I suspect the same. When someone wanted to nick the throne from someone else there was always a very convenient excuse that suddenly appeared to make it seem like they were the true king.
I don't believe it. Even if you ignore all the years of civil war & the unrest & propaganda that brings, this first came out at a time when Richard III was at his most powerful.
That power & influence, along with the less substantial belief of stability from Richard would so easily cause people to say anything that suits his cause & their own future prospects. In a time when building a new church, paying for prayers for your soul & confession would forgive all sin & ensure a quick passage to heaven, why wouldn't someone lie for their king or blacken a dead man's name?
So I can't believe any of the sources...but as with the deaths of the princes, I can also imagine it being seen as "for the greater good", to bring the country back together under someone that was seen as a strong leader...until he wasn't! 😏
It strikes me as interesting how changes in the understanding of language plays a part here too. Just as you adjusted the wording because it's meaning has taken a less literal slant, some of the descriptors used in reference to the marriage may have been meant in a less literal sense at the time. (If I weren't on my phone, I could go back & find specific examples of this.) I'm talking about what might just've been semantics: "an offensive marriage" could be simply upsetting to the barons, to other ambitious royals, to the population at large due to rumours...or in the eyes of God (namely, powerful members of the clergy). If viewed like that, using a more easily understood term for a marriage to be labelled as ungodly & therefore unlawful isn't much of a leap.
I know, I haven't expressed my reasoning very well, sorry! 😕 That document from parliament just struck me so much like something a modern politician might produce that we all know not to take literally.
Your point on changing language is so interesting, as I quite like seeing how words have changed too. One of my favourites is divers, which to us means people who swim around underwater but to out ancestors meant 'many'. There are Shakespeare couplets which were obviously meant to rhyme too, but which now don't because pronunciations have changed so much. It's a fascinating little sub-field of history.
@@HistoryCalling That's a good example (that I've never heard before but will now look up!). It can't have just changed meaning entirely one day, it must've been a process over time.
I like how you go back & look for original sources, it's one of the reasons I appreciate your channel. Yet, just as we can't judge historical figures by modern standards, we should remember we effectively speak a different language even when the words are still in our dictionaries!
It amazes me to think of how many jokes from Shakespeare are either lost to time or require long, detailed explanations. They were written, in many cases, for the masses to enjoy, no education required but they go over our heads. Almost like trying to explain to a younger person why a 20yr old film was so groundbreaking when it was released because they don't share the same cultural references that form your argument...& that's WITH RUclips to help demonstrate. 😂
Excellent
I'm unsure on it, personally. I have a book to read about Eleanor, but it's a very interesting idea. I don't think Cecily committed adultery, and I don't think Richard would have said so (because what's to stop people calling him illegitimate if he claims his mother is adulterous?). I do also think there's a good chance the Woodville/Grey clan wouldn't have settled for Richard being Lord Protector and would have likely moved to remove him - and Edward V was more likely to listen to them, so I'm not sure if Richard DID make up claims whether he'd have done it out of being power hungry, rather than being worried he was about to be removed. Basically, I'm unsure on everything :D
I suspect a secret membership that obligated him to help or a good christian act of saving a widow with children. The first husband’s death may have had an obligation to provide for his family in the event of his death.
No fear, I'm here, on my rear, to hear, with no beer, History Calling's bloodless video, oh dear. :) Watching this now, I take a bow. Edit 1: Bad algorithm, bad. It doesn't like swearing. A narrator can talk about blood drenched stories, but no cursing, odd...
I like the little rhyme :-) Yes, it is a bit annoying, especially as that word isn't always a swear word (as in this case).
@@HistoryCalling Somethin to lighten the mood of the bloody (I use the word bloody here as a yank (me) would use it)), soap operatic tales of the dark and dreary past of England, which is very bloody fascinating! :)
So was Anne (Neville), Richard’s wife still alive when the Princes in the Tower disappeared? I’m not sure of the timeline, I just know she died, their son died, the princes presumably died…. I can see her protecting Isabel’s child, if she could.
Anne was the last of them to die.
Isabellas children were already in their custody, along with the Warwick fortune.
The princes were taken to the tower. Richard then declared them illegitimate by both their parents marriage and Edward IV being illegitimate, neither was public knowledge before this time and it doesn't seem to have been believed by the nation. Parliament accepted this and declared Richard the King.
The children disappeared around the time of the.coronation.
Anne was the queen and their son, another Edward the prince.
An attempt was made to free the princes in the tower involving the earl of Richmond (Richards major supporter) and Margaret Beaufort and Henry Tudor are exposed as the challengers and conspires to the throne.
A few years into a very stressful reign prince Edward , Richards child died. Anne became ill shortly after and passes away.
It's difficult to know what she thought of events. There must have been a lot of pain and distrust within the family. But there is no evidence she was ever against her husband.
It's easy to imagine Richard was not in a good state of mind when Henry returned soon after this. Richard lost to his smaller, downhill and sunfacing army at Bosworth after a risky charge at Henry.
Yes, Anne died in 1485, her son having predeceased her by about a year.
I have heard her called "the King's Grey mare"...
It's interesting to think about Edward IV's marriage(s) in the modern context of consent. Consider that Eleanor (Talbot) Butler was a widow and possibly in a vulnerable situation, especially considering her late husband had been a Lancastrian, and now the Yorks were in power. Edward was the king, and his subjects were bound to obey him (yes?). If he had taken a fancy to Eleanor and wanted to bed her, could she really have told him "no"? In addition to that, Edward IV was just a huge guy, IIRC the tallest English king in history. It seems plausible to me that the only way Eleanor could submit to his sexual advances while still maintaining a shred of dignity was to insist they at least go through a form of marriage. It's entirely possible she didn't want to marry him and only went to bed with him because she literally had no other choices. This might explain why she never said anything. I've read that she later went into a convent but was basically a "lay sister" when she died, having not taken the vows of a nun. (Could a woman become a nun if she were married, without a husband's consent, or would the marriage have to be annulled first?)
As for the Talbot family's reaction, did they even know this had happened? Where was Eleanor living at the time? (I.e., was she physically isolated?) Is that known?
It's entirely possible Eleanor had no interest in Edward, no interest in being queen, and therefore kept quiet. If she really hadn't wanted him, it's possible she was just as relieved that he married another woman.
Consider also Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, which was conducted in secret--he had to have known this was going to make a lot of people angry, including Warwick, who was trying to negotiate a political match for him at the time. If a first marriage did indeed exist, it might not have been possible to have it annulled quickly/ secretly enough in order to marry Elizabeth, and by the time Edward was married to her, applying for an annulment would have exposed the bigamy of his second marriage. So he said nothing about it, maybe giving enough favors/ lucrative offices to Skillington to keep him happy/ quiet, imprisoning as a threat him if he worried Skillington was going to shoot his mouth off. (I also read that in addition to ordering all copies of Titulus Regius destroyed, Henry VII imprisoned Skillington, where he died. Whatever Henry may have personally believed about Edward IV's marital shenanigans, it would seem he wasn't taking any chances). It's possible Edward was just egotistical enough to think he could get away with bigamy, that he was powerful enough so that nobody would challenge him, especially once Eleanor was dead. Maybe he figured Skillington would die, too, and nobody would know. He probably never dreamed he would die so young, with his heir still six years away from his majority.
This is all speculation on my part, but it's something to consider.
Stillington, not Skillington, sorry!
Some very fair points. I don't know if we have any evidence that Edward was prone to forcing himself on women (one story is that he had to marry Elizabeth because she wouldn't sleep with him any other way but suggests he wasn't prepared to attack her), but it's certainly possible that Eleanor felt pressured into whatever scenario might or might not have occurred between them.
@@HistoryCalling The problem is the dearth of information on almost anything to do with Eleanor. We know very little about even just the outline of her life, and nothing about her character or her relations with her powerful family. We aren't even quite sure when her husband died. (Not that we know very much about Edward's approach to women, either.). Do we even have evidence that Edward and Eleanor ever met, or were in the same place at the same time. (I know she had a property dispute with her father-in-law, but did she present a petition to the king personally?) There seem to be no fixed points here at all. We can only speculate, as happy commuter interestingly does.